Dataset statistics
| Number of variables | 25 |
|---|---|
| Number of observations | 2697 |
| Missing cells | 361 |
| Missing cells (%) | 0.5% |
| Duplicate rows | 0 |
| Duplicate rows (%) | 0.0% |
| Total size in memory | 526.9 KiB |
| Average record size in memory | 200.0 B |
Variable types
| Numeric | 6 |
|---|---|
| Text | 11 |
| Categorical | 7 |
| Boolean | 1 |
Unnamed: 0_y has constant value "" | Constant |
decision_type is highly imbalanced (76.3%) | Imbalance |
disposition has 59 (2.2%) missing values | Missing |
issue_area has 113 (4.2%) missing values | Missing |
first_party_entity has 73 (2.7%) missing values | Missing |
second_party_entity has 87 (3.2%) missing values | Missing |
Unnamed: 0 is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
Unnamed: 0.1 is uniformly distributed | Uniform |
Unnamed: 0 has unique values | Unique |
Unnamed: 0.1 has unique values | Unique |
Unnamed: 0_x has unique values | Unique |
ID has unique values | Unique |
href has unique values | Unique |
facts has unique values | Unique |
Reproduction
| Analysis started | 2024-02-18 23:26:11.501950 |
|---|---|
| Analysis finished | 2024-02-18 23:26:26.786836 |
| Duration | 15.28 seconds |
| Software version | ydata-profiling v0.0.dev0 |
| Download configuration | config.json |
Unnamed: 0
Real number (ℝ)
UNIFORM UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1348 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 2696 |
| Zeros | 1 |
| Zeros (%) | < 0.1% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 134.8 |
| Q1 | 674 |
| median | 1348 |
| Q3 | 2022 |
| 95-th percentile | 2561.2 |
| Maximum | 2696 |
| Range | 2696 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 1348 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 778.70116 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.57767149 |
| Kurtosis | -1.2 |
| Mean | 1348 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 674 |
| Skewness | 0 |
| Sum | 3635556 |
| Variance | 606375.5 |
| Monotonicity | Strictly increasing |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1801 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1793 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1794 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1795 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1796 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1797 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1798 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1799 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1800 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 7 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2696 | 1 | |
| 2695 | 1 | |
| 2694 | 1 | |
| 2693 | 1 | |
| 2692 | 1 | |
| 2691 | 1 | |
| 2690 | 1 | |
| 2689 | 1 | |
| 2688 | 1 | |
| 2687 | 1 |
Unnamed: 0.1
Real number (ℝ)
UNIFORM UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1348 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 2696 |
| Zeros | 1 |
| Zeros (%) | < 0.1% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 134.8 |
| Q1 | 674 |
| median | 1348 |
| Q3 | 2022 |
| 95-th percentile | 2561.2 |
| Maximum | 2696 |
| Range | 2696 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 1348 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 778.70116 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.57767149 |
| Kurtosis | -1.2 |
| Mean | 1348 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 674 |
| Skewness | 0 |
| Sum | 3635556 |
| Variance | 606375.5 |
| Monotonicity | Strictly increasing |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1801 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1793 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1794 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1795 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1796 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1797 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1798 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1799 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1800 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 7 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2696 | 1 | |
| 2695 | 1 | |
| 2694 | 1 | |
| 2693 | 1 | |
| 2692 | 1 | |
| 2691 | 1 | |
| 2690 | 1 | |
| 2689 | 1 | |
| 2688 | 1 | |
| 2687 | 1 |
Unnamed: 0_x
Real number (ℝ)
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1653.9941 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 3302 |
| Zeros | 1 |
| Zeros (%) | < 0.1% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 155.8 |
| Q1 | 809 |
| median | 1662 |
| Q3 | 2487 |
| 95-th percentile | 3140.4 |
| Maximum | 3302 |
| Range | 3302 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 1678 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 962.68494 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.58203651 |
| Kurtosis | -1.2185905 |
| Mean | 1653.9941 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 840 |
| Skewness | -0.012126281 |
| Sum | 4460822 |
| Variance | 926762.29 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 471 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 2918 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3154 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1392 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3045 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1780 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 3210 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1986 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 704 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 1062 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 9 | 1 | |
| 10 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 3302 | 1 | |
| 3301 | 1 | |
| 3300 | 1 | |
| 3299 | 1 | |
| 3298 | 1 | |
| 3297 | 1 | |
| 3296 | 1 | |
| 3295 | 1 | |
| 3294 | 1 | |
| 3293 | 1 |
ID
Real number (ℝ)
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 56355.736 |
| Minimum | 50606 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 63335 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 50606 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 51487.4 |
| Q1 | 54289 |
| median | 55271 |
| Q3 | 59478 |
| 95-th percentile | 63013.4 |
| Maximum | 63335 |
| Range | 12729 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 5189 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 3640.0948 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.06459138 |
| Kurtosis | -0.69010176 |
| Mean | 56355.736 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 1108 |
| Skewness | 0.74086293 |
| Sum | 1.5199142 × 108 |
| Variance | 13250290 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 53057 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 62582 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 63029 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 54983 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 62821 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 55400 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 63143 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 55613 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 53925 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| 54628 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 50606 | 1 | |
| 50613 | 1 | |
| 50623 | 1 | |
| 50632 | 1 | |
| 50643 | 1 | |
| 50644 | 1 | |
| 50655 | 1 | |
| 50657 | 1 | |
| 50663 | 1 | |
| 50671 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 63335 | 1 | |
| 63332 | 1 | |
| 63331 | 1 | |
| 63324 | 1 | |
| 63323 | 1 | |
| 63322 | 1 | |
| 63321 | 1 | |
| 63319 | 1 | |
| 63318 | 1 | |
| 63316 | 1 |
name
Text
| Distinct | 2643 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 98.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 148 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 92 |
| Mean length | 31.418242 |
| Min length | 10 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 84735 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 78 |
| Distinct categories | 9 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2601 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 96.4% |
Sample
| 1st row | City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | City of Ontario v. Quon |
| 3rd row | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey |
| 4th row | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey |
| 5th row | City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| v | 2690 | 19.9% |
| united | 542 | 4.0% |
| states | 524 | 3.9% |
| of | 417 | 3.1% |
| inc | 380 | 2.8% |
| company | 139 | 1.0% |
| corporation | 81 | 0.6% |
| 80 | 0.6% | |
| new | 77 | 0.6% |
| city | 69 | 0.5% |
| Other values (3889) | 8492 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | 12.8% | |
| e | 6425 | 7.6% |
| n | 5499 | 6.5% |
| a | 5384 | 6.4% |
| o | 5086 | 6.0% |
| i | 4978 | 5.9% |
| t | 4906 | 5.8% |
| r | 4165 | 4.9% |
| . | 3503 | 4.1% |
| s | 3498 | 4.1% |
| Other values (68) | 30487 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 58950 | |
| Space Separator | 10804 | 12.8% |
| Uppercase Letter | 10681 | 12.6% |
| Other Punctuation | 4108 | 4.8% |
| Dash Punctuation | 121 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 53 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 8 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 8 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 2 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 6425 | |
| n | 5499 | |
| a | 5384 | |
| o | 5086 | 8.6% |
| i | 4978 | 8.4% |
| t | 4906 | 8.3% |
| r | 4165 | 7.1% |
| s | 3498 | 5.9% |
| v | 3122 | 5.3% |
| l | 2816 | 4.8% |
| Other values (21) | 13071 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| S | 1341 | 12.6% |
| C | 1328 | 12.4% |
| M | 680 | 6.4% |
| U | 659 | 6.2% |
| I | 655 | 6.1% |
| A | 511 | 4.8% |
| L | 474 | 4.4% |
| P | 473 | 4.4% |
| R | 444 | 4.2% |
| D | 424 | 4.0% |
| Other values (16) | 3692 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 17 | |
| 9 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 5 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 7 | 6 | 11.3% |
| 3 | 4 | 7.5% |
| 2 | 4 | 7.5% |
| 0 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 4 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 8 | 3 | 5.7% |
| 6 | 1 | 1.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 3503 | |
| , | 478 | 11.6% |
| & | 83 | 2.0% |
| ' | 42 | 1.0% |
| / | 1 | < 0.1% |
| # | 1 | < 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 121 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 8 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 8 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 69631 | |
| Common | 15104 | 17.8% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 6425 | 9.2% |
| n | 5499 | 7.9% |
| a | 5384 | 7.7% |
| o | 5086 | 7.3% |
| i | 4978 | 7.1% |
| t | 4906 | 7.0% |
| r | 4165 | 6.0% |
| s | 3498 | 5.0% |
| v | 3122 | 4.5% |
| l | 2816 | 4.0% |
| Other values (47) | 23752 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | ||
| . | 3503 | 23.2% |
| , | 478 | 3.2% |
| - | 121 | 0.8% |
| & | 83 | 0.5% |
| ' | 42 | 0.3% |
| 1 | 17 | 0.1% |
| ( | 8 | 0.1% |
| ) | 8 | 0.1% |
| 9 | 6 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (11) | 34 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 84726 | |
| None | 7 | < 0.1% |
| Punctuation | 2 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 10804 | 12.8% | |
| e | 6425 | 7.6% |
| n | 5499 | 6.5% |
| a | 5384 | 6.4% |
| o | 5086 | 6.0% |
| i | 4978 | 5.9% |
| t | 4906 | 5.8% |
| r | 4165 | 4.9% |
| . | 3503 | 4.1% |
| s | 3498 | 4.1% |
| Other values (62) | 30478 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| é | 2 | |
| í | 2 | |
| ó | 1 | |
| ã | 1 | |
| ñ | 1 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2 |
href
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 45 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 44 |
| Mean length | 38.137931 |
| Min length | 33 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 102858 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 30 |
| Distinct categories | 5 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2697 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 |
| 3rd row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 |
| 4th row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 |
| 5th row | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1669 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-1053 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-424 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1360 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-998 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-224 | 1 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (2687) | 2687 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | 13.1% |
| s | 8142 | 7.9% |
| o | 5415 | 5.3% |
| a | 5395 | 5.2% |
| p | 5394 | 5.2% |
| . | 5394 | 5.2% |
| e | 5394 | 5.2% |
| t | 5394 | 5.2% |
| 1 | 4885 | 4.7% |
| 0 | 3907 | 3.8% |
| Other values (20) | 40053 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 54133 | |
| Decimal Number | 24718 | |
| Other Punctuation | 21576 | 21.0% |
| Dash Punctuation | 2419 | 2.4% |
| Connector Punctuation | 12 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8142 | |
| o | 5415 | |
| a | 5395 | |
| p | 5394 | |
| e | 5394 | |
| t | 5394 | |
| i | 2721 | 5.0% |
| r | 2718 | 5.0% |
| g | 2718 | 5.0% |
| c | 2700 | 5.0% |
| Other values (5) | 8142 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 4885 | |
| 0 | 3907 | |
| 9 | 3629 | |
| 2 | 2708 | |
| 8 | 1927 | 7.8% |
| 7 | 1865 | 7.5% |
| 5 | 1603 | 6.5% |
| 6 | 1554 | 6.3% |
| 4 | 1336 | 5.4% |
| 3 | 1304 | 5.3% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | |
| . | 5394 | 25.0% |
| : | 2697 | 12.5% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 2419 |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 12 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 54133 | |
| Common | 48725 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | |
| . | 5394 | 11.1% |
| 1 | 4885 | 10.0% |
| 0 | 3907 | 8.0% |
| 9 | 3629 | 7.4% |
| 2 | 2708 | 5.6% |
| : | 2697 | 5.5% |
| - | 2419 | 5.0% |
| 8 | 1927 | 4.0% |
| 7 | 1865 | 3.8% |
| Other values (5) | 5809 |
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| s | 8142 | |
| o | 5415 | |
| a | 5395 | |
| p | 5394 | |
| e | 5394 | |
| t | 5394 | |
| i | 2721 | 5.0% |
| r | 2718 | 5.0% |
| g | 2718 | 5.0% |
| c | 2700 | 5.0% |
| Other values (5) | 8142 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 102858 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 13485 | 13.1% |
| s | 8142 | 7.9% |
| o | 5415 | 5.3% |
| a | 5395 | 5.2% |
| p | 5394 | 5.2% |
| . | 5394 | 5.2% |
| e | 5394 | 5.2% |
| t | 5394 | 5.2% |
| 1 | 4885 | 4.7% |
| 0 | 3907 | 3.8% |
| Other values (20) | 40053 |
docket
Text
| Distinct | 2574 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 95.8% |
| Missing | 10 |
| Missing (%) | 0.4% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 8 |
| Mean length | 5.9854857 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 16083 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 23 |
| Distinct categories | 5 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2514 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 93.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | 83-1919 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 08-1332 |
| 3rd row | 75-1150 |
| 4th row | 77-404 |
| 5th row | 03-1601 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 6 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 13 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 8 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 5 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 23 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 9 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 7 | 5 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 4 | 0.1% |
| 3 | 4 | 0.1% |
| Other values (2564) | 2637 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (13) | 1139 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 13593 | |
| Dash Punctuation | 2379 | 14.8% |
| Lowercase Letter | 94 | 0.6% |
| Uppercase Letter | 14 | 0.1% |
| Space Separator | 3 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| 3 | 1028 |
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| g | 21 | |
| r | 21 | |
| i | 21 | |
| o | 21 | |
| u | 5 | 5.3% |
| s | 5 | 5.3% |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| M | 3 | |
| I | 3 | |
| S | 3 | |
| C | 3 | |
| A | 2 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 2379 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 3 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 15975 | |
| Latin | 108 | 0.7% |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (2) | 1031 |
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| g | 21 | |
| r | 21 | |
| i | 21 | |
| o | 21 | |
| u | 5 | 4.6% |
| s | 5 | 4.6% |
| M | 3 | 2.8% |
| I | 3 | 2.8% |
| S | 3 | 2.8% |
| C | 3 | 2.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 16083 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 2564 | |
| - | 2379 | |
| 0 | 1556 | |
| 9 | 1473 | |
| 8 | 1281 | |
| 7 | 1273 | |
| 5 | 1185 | |
| 2 | 1104 | |
| 4 | 1065 | |
| 6 | 1064 | |
| Other values (13) | 1139 |
term
Text
| Distinct | 70 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 2.6% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 9 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 4 |
| Mean length | 4.0908417 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 11033 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 11 |
| Distinct categories | 2 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1984 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 2009 |
| 3rd row | 1976 |
| 4th row | 1977 |
| 5th row | 2004 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2015 | 73 | 2.7% |
| 2005 | 72 | 2.7% |
| 2011 | 71 | 2.6% |
| 2002 | 70 | 2.6% |
| 2009 | 70 | 2.6% |
| 1997 | 69 | 2.6% |
| 1996 | 69 | 2.6% |
| 2004 | 68 | 2.5% |
| 1999 | 68 | 2.5% |
| 1998 | 68 | 2.5% |
| Other values (60) | 1999 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 10984 | |
| Dash Punctuation | 49 | 0.4% |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.2% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 49 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 11033 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 11033 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2342 | |
| 1 | 2296 | |
| 9 | 2150 | |
| 2 | 1587 | |
| 8 | 636 | 5.8% |
| 7 | 584 | 5.3% |
| 6 | 485 | 4.4% |
| 5 | 410 | 3.7% |
| 4 | 257 | 2.3% |
| 3 | 237 | 2.1% |
first_party
Text
| Distinct | 2222 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 82.4% |
| Missing | 1 |
| Missing (%) | < 0.1% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 223 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 107 |
| Mean length | 22.247033 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 59978 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 79 |
| Distinct categories | 10 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2091 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 77.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | City of Oklahoma City |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | City of Ontario, California et al. |
| 3rd row | City of Philadelphia et al. |
| 4th row | City of Philadelphia |
| 5th row | City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, et al. |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| et | 417 | 4.5% |
| al | 401 | 4.3% |
| of | 378 | 4.1% |
| united | 247 | 2.7% |
| states | 238 | 2.6% |
| inc | 208 | 2.3% |
| and | 122 | 1.3% |
| company | 88 | 1.0% |
| the | 76 | 0.8% |
| corporation | 62 | 0.7% |
| Other values (3068) | 7006 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | 11.0% | |
| e | 5375 | 9.0% |
| a | 4425 | 7.4% |
| n | 3941 | 6.6% |
| t | 3752 | 6.3% |
| o | 3700 | 6.2% |
| r | 3437 | 5.7% |
| i | 3344 | 5.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.2% |
| s | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Other values (69) | 20648 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 42942 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 8065 | 13.4% |
| Space Separator | 6569 | 11.0% |
| Other Punctuation | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Dash Punctuation | 63 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 41 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 3 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 3 | < 0.1% |
| Control | 2 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5375 | |
| a | 4425 | |
| n | 3941 | |
| t | 3752 | |
| o | 3700 | |
| r | 3437 | 8.0% |
| i | 3344 | 7.8% |
| l | 2498 | 5.8% |
| s | 2289 | 5.3% |
| c | 1415 | 3.3% |
| Other values (18) | 8766 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| S | 893 | 11.1% |
| C | 852 | 10.6% |
| M | 545 | 6.8% |
| D | 426 | 5.3% |
| A | 423 | 5.2% |
| R | 411 | 5.1% |
| L | 410 | 5.1% |
| I | 401 | 5.0% |
| P | 351 | 4.4% |
| J | 343 | 4.3% |
| Other values (16) | 3010 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 5 | 6 | |
| 9 | 4 | |
| 7 | 4 | |
| 2 | 4 | |
| 0 | 4 | |
| 3 | 4 | |
| 8 | 3 | 7.3% |
| 6 | 2 | 4.9% |
| 4 | 2 | 4.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 1223 | |
| , | 989 | |
| & | 40 | 1.7% |
| ' | 22 | 1.0% |
| ; | 7 | 0.3% |
| / | 3 | 0.1% |
| " | 2 | 0.1% |
| # | 2 | 0.1% |
| : | 1 | < 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 63 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 3 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 3 |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 51007 | |
| Common | 8971 | 15.0% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5375 | 10.5% |
| a | 4425 | 8.7% |
| n | 3941 | 7.7% |
| t | 3752 | 7.4% |
| o | 3700 | 7.3% |
| r | 3437 | 6.7% |
| i | 3344 | 6.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.9% |
| s | 2289 | 4.5% |
| c | 1415 | 2.8% |
| Other values (44) | 16831 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | ||
| . | 1223 | 13.6% |
| , | 989 | 11.0% |
| - | 63 | 0.7% |
| & | 40 | 0.4% |
| ' | 22 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 8 | 0.1% |
| ; | 7 | 0.1% |
| 5 | 6 | 0.1% |
| 9 | 4 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (15) | 40 | 0.4% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 59975 | |
| None | 2 | < 0.1% |
| Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6569 | 11.0% | |
| e | 5375 | 9.0% |
| a | 4425 | 7.4% |
| n | 3941 | 6.6% |
| t | 3752 | 6.3% |
| o | 3700 | 6.2% |
| r | 3437 | 5.7% |
| i | 3344 | 5.6% |
| l | 2498 | 4.2% |
| s | 2289 | 3.8% |
| Other values (66) | 20645 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| é | 1 | |
| á | 1 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
second_party
Text
| Distinct | 2121 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 78.7% |
| Missing | 1 |
| Missing (%) | < 0.1% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 193 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 109 |
| Mean length | 22.735905 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 61296 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 74 |
| Distinct categories | 9 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1996 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 74.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | Rose Marie Tuttle, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Tuttle |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Jeff Quon, et al. |
| 3rd row | New Jersey et al. |
| 4th row | New Jersey |
| 5th row | Mark J. Abrams |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| et | 518 | 5.4% |
| al | 508 | 5.3% |
| of | 449 | 4.7% |
| united | 322 | 3.4% |
| states | 312 | 3.3% |
| inc | 206 | 2.2% |
| and | 106 | 1.1% |
| the | 84 | 0.9% |
| company | 75 | 0.8% |
| state | 70 | 0.7% |
| Other values (2952) | 6855 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | 11.1% | |
| e | 5400 | 8.8% |
| a | 4747 | 7.7% |
| t | 4094 | 6.7% |
| n | 3918 | 6.4% |
| i | 3746 | 6.1% |
| o | 3714 | 6.1% |
| r | 3283 | 5.4% |
| l | 2615 | 4.3% |
| s | 2436 | 4.0% |
| Other values (64) | 20524 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 44008 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 7925 | 12.9% |
| Space Separator | 6819 | 11.1% |
| Other Punctuation | 2411 | 3.9% |
| Dash Punctuation | 69 | 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 45 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 9 | < 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 9 | < 0.1% |
| Final Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5400 | |
| a | 4747 | |
| t | 4094 | |
| n | 3918 | |
| i | 3746 | |
| o | 3714 | |
| r | 3283 | 7.5% |
| l | 2615 | 5.9% |
| s | 2436 | 5.5% |
| c | 1358 | 3.1% |
| Other values (17) | 8697 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 942 | 11.9% |
| S | 901 | 11.4% |
| A | 511 | 6.4% |
| M | 446 | 5.6% |
| I | 425 | 5.4% |
| U | 385 | 4.9% |
| D | 380 | 4.8% |
| B | 368 | 4.6% |
| R | 363 | 4.6% |
| L | 340 | 4.3% |
| Other values (16) | 2864 |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 18 | |
| 0 | 6 | 13.3% |
| 3 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 5 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 7 | 4 | 8.9% |
| 2 | 3 | 6.7% |
| 9 | 2 | 4.4% |
| 4 | 2 | 4.4% |
| 8 | 1 | 2.2% |
| 6 | 1 | 2.2% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 1274 | |
| , | 1043 | |
| & | 46 | 1.9% |
| ' | 26 | 1.1% |
| ; | 20 | 0.8% |
| / | 2 | 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 69 |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 9 |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 9 |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 51933 | |
| Common | 9363 | 15.3% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 5400 | 10.4% |
| a | 4747 | 9.1% |
| t | 4094 | 7.9% |
| n | 3918 | 7.5% |
| i | 3746 | 7.2% |
| o | 3714 | 7.2% |
| r | 3283 | 6.3% |
| l | 2615 | 5.0% |
| s | 2436 | 4.7% |
| c | 1358 | 2.6% |
| Other values (43) | 16622 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | ||
| . | 1274 | 13.6% |
| , | 1043 | 11.1% |
| - | 69 | 0.7% |
| & | 46 | 0.5% |
| ' | 26 | 0.3% |
| ; | 20 | 0.2% |
| 1 | 18 | 0.2% |
| ( | 9 | 0.1% |
| ) | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (11) | 30 | 0.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 61294 | |
| Punctuation | 1 | < 0.1% |
| None | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 6819 | 11.1% | |
| e | 5400 | 8.8% |
| a | 4747 | 7.7% |
| t | 4094 | 6.7% |
| n | 3918 | 6.4% |
| i | 3746 | 6.1% |
| o | 3714 | 6.1% |
| r | 3283 | 5.4% |
| l | 2615 | 4.3% |
| s | 2436 | 4.0% |
| Other values (62) | 20522 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1 |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ñ | 1 |
facts
Text
UNIQUE
| Distinct | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 100.0% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 5858 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1512 |
| Mean length | 1108.5821 |
| Min length | 26 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2989846 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 104 |
| Distinct categories | 16 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 4 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2697 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 100.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | <p>On October 10, 1980, an Oklahoma City police officer shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside a bar. Rose Marie Tuttle, Albert’s widow, sued the police officer and the city in district court under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows an individual to recover damages against a party who “acting under color of state law” deprives another of his constitutional rights. The district court instructed the jury that the city could be held liable only if the incident had been caused by a municipal “policy,” but a single, unusually excessive use of force could support a finding that the city was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent in the training or supervision of its police force and was therefore liable under Section 1983. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the police officer but against the city and awarded Tuttle’s estate $1.5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.</p> |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | <p>Employees of the City of Ontario, California police department filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in a California federal district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They alleged Fourth Amendment violations in relation to the police department's review of text messages made by an employee on a city issued text-message pager. While the city did not have an official text-messaging privacy policy, it did have a general "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy." The policy in part stated that "[t]he City of Ontario reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice," and that "[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." Employees were told verbally that the text-messaging pagers were considered e-mail and subject to the general policy. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.</p> <p>On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court held that city employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the text messages they sent on their city-issued pagers because there was no text message privacy policy in place. Moreover, the court noted that the police department's review of the text messages was unreasonable because it could have used "less intrusive methods" to determine whether employees' had properly used the text messaging service.</p> |
| 3rd row | <p>A New Jersey statute prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste into the state, except for garbage for swine feed. The City of Philadelphia challenged the statute, alleging it was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of Article I and pre-empted by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the statute. Congress then passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.</p> |
| 4th row | <p>A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."</p> |
| 5th row | <p>Rancho Palos Verdes, a city in California, gave Mark Abrams a permit to construct an antenna on his property for amateur use. But when the city learned Abrams used the antenna for commercial purposes, the city forced Abrams to stop until he got a commercial use permit. Abrams applied and the city refused to give him the permit. Abrams then sued in federal district court, alleging the city violated his rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Abrams sought damages under a federal liability law that allowed people to sue for damages for federal rights violations.</p> <p>The district court agreed with Abrams and ordered the city to give Abrams the permit. But the court refused Abrams' request for damages under the separate federal liability law. The court said Congress intended for violations of rights under the Telecommunications Act to include only remedies specifically found in that act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that because the act did not contain a "comprehensive remedial scheme," Abrams could seek damages under other federal laws.</p> |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 40890 | 8.8% |
| of | 16316 | 3.5% |
| to | 12754 | 2.8% |
| and | 11396 | 2.5% |
| a | 10687 | 2.3% |
| that | 9621 | 2.1% |
| court | 8325 | 1.8% |
| in | 8247 | 1.8% |
| for | 6017 | 1.3% |
| was | 5414 | 1.2% |
| Other values (25883) | 333638 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| e | 293885 | 9.8% |
| t | 235741 | 7.9% |
| a | 184692 | 6.2% |
| i | 181559 | 6.1% |
| n | 164827 | 5.5% |
| o | 164608 | 5.5% |
| r | 158578 | 5.3% |
| s | 135876 | 4.5% |
| d | 105090 | 3.5% |
| Other values (94) | 905288 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 2307428 | |
| Space Separator | 459912 | 15.4% |
| Uppercase Letter | 100304 | 3.4% |
| Other Punctuation | 62612 | 2.1% |
| Decimal Number | 22520 | 0.8% |
| Math Symbol | 19626 | 0.7% |
| Control | 4280 | 0.1% |
| Dash Punctuation | 3826 | 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 2796 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 2760 | 0.1% |
| Other values (6) | 3782 | 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 293885 | |
| t | 235741 | |
| a | 184692 | 8.0% |
| i | 181559 | 7.9% |
| n | 164827 | 7.1% |
| o | 164608 | 7.1% |
| r | 158578 | 6.9% |
| s | 135876 | 5.9% |
| d | 105090 | 4.6% |
| h | 104892 | 4.5% |
| Other values (21) | 577680 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 14658 | |
| A | 12053 | |
| S | 10346 | 10.3% |
| T | 10103 | 10.1% |
| I | 4822 | 4.8% |
| M | 4567 | 4.6% |
| D | 4303 | 4.3% |
| F | 4192 | 4.2% |
| P | 3649 | 3.6% |
| U | 3585 | 3.6% |
| Other values (16) | 28026 |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 26555 | |
| , | 21747 | |
| / | 5269 | 8.4% |
| ' | 4254 | 6.8% |
| " | 3759 | 6.0% |
| ; | 416 | 0.7% |
| § | 193 | 0.3% |
| & | 161 | 0.3% |
| : | 142 | 0.2% |
| % | 74 | 0.1% |
| Other values (3) | 42 | 0.1% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 4785 | |
| 0 | 3755 | |
| 9 | 3264 | |
| 2 | 2799 | |
| 5 | 1501 | 6.7% |
| 8 | 1424 | 6.3% |
| 6 | 1256 | 5.6% |
| 7 | 1250 | 5.6% |
| 3 | 1245 | 5.5% |
| 4 | 1241 | 5.5% |
Math Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| > | 9757 | |
| < | 9757 | |
| = | 103 | 0.5% |
| ⎯ | 8 | < 0.1% |
| + | 1 | < 0.1% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 3705 | |
| — | 92 | 2.4% |
| – | 27 | 0.7% |
| ― | 2 | 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| 210 | < 0.1% |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 2657 | |
| ] | 139 | 5.0% |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 2621 | |
| [ | 139 | 5.0% |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1853 | |
| ” | 708 | 27.6% |
Initial Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| “ | 711 | |
| ‘ | 26 | 3.5% |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 4280 |
Currency Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| $ | 413 |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 67 |
Line Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2 |
Other Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ½ | 2 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 2407732 | |
| Common | 582114 | 19.5% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 293885 | |
| t | 235741 | 9.8% |
| a | 184692 | 7.7% |
| i | 181559 | 7.5% |
| n | 164827 | 6.8% |
| o | 164608 | 6.8% |
| r | 158578 | 6.6% |
| s | 135876 | 5.6% |
| d | 105090 | 4.4% |
| h | 104892 | 4.4% |
| Other values (47) | 677984 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| . | 26555 | 4.6% |
| , | 21747 | 3.7% |
| > | 9757 | 1.7% |
| < | 9757 | 1.7% |
| / | 5269 | 0.9% |
| 1 | 4785 | 0.8% |
| 4280 | 0.7% | |
| ' | 4254 | 0.7% |
| " | 3759 | 0.6% |
| Other values (37) | 32249 | 5.5% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2985979 | |
| Punctuation | 3437 | 0.1% |
| None | 422 | < 0.1% |
| Misc Technical | 8 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 459702 | ||
| e | 293885 | 9.8% |
| t | 235741 | 7.9% |
| a | 184692 | 6.2% |
| i | 181559 | 6.1% |
| n | 164827 | 5.5% |
| o | 164608 | 5.5% |
| r | 158578 | 5.3% |
| s | 135876 | 4.6% |
| d | 105090 | 3.5% |
| Other values (76) | 901421 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 1853 | |
| “ | 711 | 20.7% |
| ” | 708 | 20.6% |
| — | 92 | 2.7% |
| – | 27 | 0.8% |
| ‘ | 26 | 0.8% |
| … | 16 | 0.5% |
| ― | 2 | 0.1% |
| 2 | 0.1% |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 210 | ||
| § | 193 | |
| á | 9 | 2.1% |
| ó | 3 | 0.7% |
| é | 2 | 0.5% |
| ½ | 2 | 0.5% |
| í | 2 | 0.5% |
| ü | 1 | 0.2% |
Misc Technical
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ⎯ | 8 |
facts_len
Real number (ℝ)
| Distinct | 1444 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 53.5% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 1108.5821 |
| Minimum | 26 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 5858 |
| Zeros | 0 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.0% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 26 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 375.8 |
| Q1 | 746 |
| median | 1051 |
| Q3 | 1382 |
| 95-th percentile | 2076.4 |
| Maximum | 5858 |
| Range | 5832 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 636 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 527.23266 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.47559188 |
| Kurtosis | 3.9144131 |
| Mean | 1108.5821 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 317 |
| Skewness | 1.1538625 |
| Sum | 2989846 |
| Variance | 277974.28 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=50)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1174 | 8 | 0.3% |
| 986 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 954 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1415 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1280 | 7 | 0.3% |
| 1118 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 1067 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 1290 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 780 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 847 | 6 | 0.2% |
| Other values (1434) | 2631 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 26 | 1 | |
| 30 | 1 | |
| 31 | 1 | |
| 105 | 1 | |
| 106 | 1 | |
| 107 | 1 | |
| 125 | 1 | |
| 145 | 1 | |
| 147 | 1 | |
| 162 | 1 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 5858 | 1 | |
| 4299 | 1 | |
| 3538 | 1 | |
| 3526 | 1 | |
| 3516 | 1 | |
| 3281 | 1 | |
| 3248 | 1 | |
| 3215 | 1 | |
| 3206 | 1 | |
| 3174 | 1 |
majority_vote
Real number (ℝ)
| Distinct | 7 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Infinite | 0 |
| Infinite (%) | 0.0% |
| Mean | 7.028921 |
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| Maximum | 9 |
| Zeros | 19 |
| Zeros (%) | 0.7% |
| Negative | 0 |
| Negative (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Quantile statistics
| Minimum | 0 |
|---|---|
| 5-th percentile | 5 |
| Q1 | 5 |
| median | 7 |
| Q3 | 9 |
| 95-th percentile | 9 |
| Maximum | 9 |
| Range | 9 |
| Interquartile range (IQR) | 4 |
Descriptive statistics
| Standard deviation | 1.7184787 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient of variation (CV) | 0.24448685 |
| Kurtosis | 0.1180519 |
| Mean | 7.028921 |
| Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 2 |
| Skewness | -0.47051477 |
| Sum | 18957 |
| Variance | 2.9531692 |
| Monotonicity | Not monotonic |
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=7)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 9 | 849 | |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 9 | 849 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 9 | 849 | |
| 8 | 346 | |
| 7 | 353 | |
| 6 | 453 | |
| 5 | 651 | |
| 4 | 26 | 1.0% |
| 0 | 19 | 0.7% |
minority_vote
Categorical
| Distinct | 5 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.2% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| 0 | |
|---|---|
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 |
Length
| Max length | 1 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1 |
| Mean length | 1 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 5 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 1 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 0 |
| 3rd row | 4 |
| 4th row | 2 |
| 5th row | 0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 2697 |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 2697 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2697 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 1048 | |
| 4 | 570 | |
| 3 | 443 | |
| 2 | 374 | 13.9% |
| 1 | 262 | 9.7% |
first_party_winner
Boolean
| Distinct | 2 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.1% |
| Missing | 12 |
| Missing (%) | 0.4% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| True | |
|---|---|
| False | |
| (Missing) | 12 |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| True | 1764 | |
| False | 921 | |
| (Missing) | 12 | 0.4% |
decision_type
Categorical
IMBALANCE
| Distinct | 10 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.4% |
| Missing | 5 |
| Missing (%) | 0.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| majority opinion | |
|---|---|
| per curiam | 216 |
| plurality opinion | 123 |
| equally divided | 12 |
| dismissal - rule 46 | 6 |
| Other values (5) | 15 |
Length
| Max length | 33 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 16 |
| Mean length | 15.599183 |
| Min length | 10 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 41993 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 25 |
| Distinct categories | 4 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | plurality opinion |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | majority opinion |
| 3rd row | per curiam |
| 4th row | majority opinion |
| 5th row | majority opinion |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| majority opinion | 2320 | |
| per curiam | 216 | 8.0% |
| plurality opinion | 123 | 4.6% |
| equally divided | 12 | 0.4% |
| dismissal - rule 46 | 6 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - improvidently granted | 5 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - other | 5 | 0.2% |
| dismissal - moot | 3 | 0.1% |
| memorandum | 1 | < 0.1% |
| opinion of the court | 1 | < 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 5 | 0.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| opinion | 2444 | |
| majority | 2320 | |
| per | 216 | 4.0% |
| curiam | 216 | 4.0% |
| plurality | 123 | 2.3% |
| dismissal | 19 | 0.4% |
| 19 | 0.4% | |
| equally | 12 | 0.2% |
| divided | 12 | 0.2% |
| 46 | 6 | 0.1% |
| Other values (9) | 28 | 0.5% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 6.9% |
| p | 2788 | 6.6% |
| 2723 | 6.5% | |
| a | 2696 | 6.4% |
| m | 2566 | 6.1% |
| t | 2463 | 5.9% |
| y | 2460 | 5.9% |
| Other values (15) | 3654 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 39239 | |
| Space Separator | 2723 | 6.5% |
| Dash Punctuation | 19 | < 0.1% |
| Decimal Number | 12 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 7.4% |
| p | 2788 | 7.1% |
| a | 2696 | 6.9% |
| m | 2566 | 6.5% |
| t | 2463 | 6.3% |
| y | 2460 | 6.3% |
| j | 2320 | 5.9% |
| Other values (11) | 1303 | 3.3% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 4 | 6 | |
| 6 | 6 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2723 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 19 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 39239 | |
| Common | 2754 | 6.6% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 7.4% |
| p | 2788 | 7.1% |
| a | 2696 | 6.9% |
| m | 2566 | 6.5% |
| t | 2463 | 6.3% |
| y | 2460 | 6.3% |
| j | 2320 | 5.9% |
| Other values (11) | 1303 | 3.3% |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2723 | ||
| - | 19 | 0.7% |
| 4 | 6 | 0.2% |
| 6 | 6 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 41993 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 7619 | |
| o | 7227 | |
| n | 4899 | |
| r | 2898 | 6.9% |
| p | 2788 | 6.6% |
| 2723 | 6.5% | |
| a | 2696 | 6.4% |
| m | 2566 | 6.1% |
| t | 2463 | 5.9% |
| y | 2460 | 5.9% |
| Other values (15) | 3654 |
disposition
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 9 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 59 |
| Missing (%) | 2.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| reversed/remanded | |
|---|---|
| affirmed | |
| reversed | |
| vacated/remanded | |
| reversed in-part/remanded | 49 |
| Other values (4) | 56 |
Length
| Max length | 25 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 24 |
| Mean length | 12.448825 |
| Min length | 4 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 32840 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 17 |
| Distinct categories | 4 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | reversed |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | reversed/remanded |
| 3rd row | vacated/remanded |
| 4th row | reversed |
| 5th row | reversed/remanded |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| reversed/remanded | 885 | |
| affirmed | 809 | |
| reversed | 479 | |
| vacated/remanded | 360 | |
| reversed in-part/remanded | 49 | 1.8% |
| none | 30 | 1.1% |
| reversed in-part | 17 | 0.6% |
| vacated | 6 | 0.2% |
| vacated in-part/remanded | 3 | 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 59 | 2.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| reversed/remanded | 885 | |
| affirmed | 809 | |
| reversed | 545 | |
| vacated/remanded | 360 | |
| in-part/remanded | 52 | 1.9% |
| none | 30 | 1.1% |
| in-part | 17 | 0.6% |
| vacated | 9 | 0.3% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 8.9% |
| m | 2106 | 6.4% |
| v | 1799 | 5.5% |
| f | 1618 | 4.9% |
| s | 1430 | 4.4% |
| n | 1426 | 4.3% |
| / | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Other values (7) | 1922 | 5.9% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 31405 | |
| Other Punctuation | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Space Separator | 69 | 0.2% |
| Dash Punctuation | 69 | 0.2% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 9.3% |
| m | 2106 | 6.7% |
| v | 1799 | 5.7% |
| f | 1618 | 5.2% |
| s | 1430 | 4.6% |
| n | 1426 | 4.5% |
| i | 878 | 2.8% |
| Other values (4) | 906 | 2.9% |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 1297 |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 69 |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 69 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 31405 | |
| Common | 1435 | 4.4% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 9.3% |
| m | 2106 | 6.7% |
| v | 1799 | 5.7% |
| f | 1618 | 5.2% |
| s | 1430 | 4.6% |
| n | 1426 | 4.5% |
| i | 878 | 2.8% |
| Other values (4) | 906 | 2.9% |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 1297 | |
| 69 | 4.8% | |
| - | 69 | 4.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 32840 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 8092 | |
| d | 5202 | |
| r | 5035 | |
| a | 2913 | 8.9% |
| m | 2106 | 6.4% |
| v | 1799 | 5.5% |
| f | 1618 | 4.9% |
| s | 1430 | 4.4% |
| n | 1426 | 4.3% |
| / | 1297 | 3.9% |
| Other values (7) | 1922 | 5.9% |
issue_area
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 14 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.5% |
| Missing | 113 |
| Missing (%) | 4.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| Criminal Procedure | |
|---|---|
| Civil Rights | |
| Economic Activity | |
| First Amendment | |
| Judicial Power | |
| Other values (9) |
Length
| Max length | 20 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 17 |
| Mean length | 14.754257 |
| Min length | 6 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 38125 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 32 |
| Distinct categories | 3 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | < 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | Civil Rights |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | Criminal Procedure |
| 3rd row | Economic Activity |
| 4th row | Economic Activity |
| 5th row | Civil Rights |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Criminal Procedure | 709 | |
| Civil Rights | 470 | |
| Economic Activity | 439 | |
| First Amendment | 290 | |
| Judicial Power | 274 | 10.2% |
| Due Process | 102 | 3.8% |
| Federalism | 96 | 3.6% |
| Privacy | 59 | 2.2% |
| Unions | 46 | 1.7% |
| Federal Taxation | 45 | 1.7% |
| Other values (4) | 54 | 2.0% |
| (Missing) | 113 | 4.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| criminal | 709 | |
| procedure | 709 | |
| civil | 470 | |
| rights | 470 | |
| economic | 439 | |
| activity | 439 | |
| first | 290 | |
| amendment | 290 | |
| judicial | 274 | 5.6% |
| power | 274 | 5.6% |
| Other values (13) | 552 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 7.9% |
| e | 2833 | 7.4% |
| c | 2482 | 6.5% |
| 2332 | 6.1% | |
| o | 2108 | 5.5% |
| t | 2045 | 5.4% |
| n | 1920 | 5.0% |
| m | 1824 | 4.8% |
| l | 1633 | 4.3% |
| Other values (22) | 12667 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 30877 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 4916 | 12.9% |
| Space Separator | 2332 | 6.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | |
| e | 2833 | |
| c | 2482 | 8.0% |
| o | 2108 | 6.8% |
| t | 2045 | 6.6% |
| n | 1920 | 6.2% |
| m | 1824 | 5.9% |
| l | 1633 | 5.3% |
| d | 1414 | 4.6% |
| Other values (9) | 6337 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 1179 | |
| P | 1146 | |
| A | 763 | |
| R | 471 | 9.6% |
| E | 439 | 8.9% |
| F | 431 | 8.8% |
| J | 274 | 5.6% |
| D | 102 | 2.1% |
| U | 46 | 0.9% |
| T | 45 | 0.9% |
| Other values (2) | 20 | 0.4% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2332 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 35793 | |
| Common | 2332 | 6.1% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 8.5% |
| e | 2833 | 7.9% |
| c | 2482 | 6.9% |
| o | 2108 | 5.9% |
| t | 2045 | 5.7% |
| n | 1920 | 5.4% |
| m | 1824 | 5.1% |
| l | 1633 | 4.6% |
| d | 1414 | 4.0% |
| Other values (21) | 11253 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 2332 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 38125 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| i | 5253 | |
| r | 3028 | 7.9% |
| e | 2833 | 7.4% |
| c | 2482 | 6.5% |
| 2332 | 6.1% | |
| o | 2108 | 5.5% |
| t | 2045 | 5.4% |
| n | 1920 | 5.0% |
| m | 1824 | 4.8% |
| l | 1633 | 4.3% |
| Other values (22) | 12667 |
first_party_entity
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 7 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 73 |
| Missing (%) | 2.7% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| PERSON | |
|---|---|
| ORG | |
| GPE | |
| CARDINAL | 6 |
| FAC | 4 |
| Other values (2) | 2 |
Length
| Max length | 8 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 6 |
| Mean length | 4.5346799 |
| Min length | 3 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 11899 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 14 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | GPE |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | GPE |
| 3rd row | GPE |
| 4th row | GPE |
| 5th row | GPE |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| PERSON | 1332 | |
| ORG | 785 | |
| GPE | 495 | 18.4% |
| CARDINAL | 6 | 0.2% |
| FAC | 4 | 0.1% |
| LOC | 1 | < 0.1% |
| DATE | 1 | < 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 73 | 2.7% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| person | 1332 | |
| org | 785 | |
| gpe | 495 | 18.9% |
| cardinal | 6 | 0.2% |
| fac | 4 | 0.2% |
| loc | 1 | < 0.1% |
| date | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 2123 | |
| O | 2118 | |
| E | 1828 | |
| P | 1827 | |
| N | 1338 | |
| S | 1332 | |
| G | 1280 | |
| A | 17 | 0.1% |
| C | 11 | 0.1% |
| D | 7 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 18 | 0.2% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Uppercase Letter | 11899 |
Most frequent character per category
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 2123 | |
| O | 2118 | |
| E | 1828 | |
| P | 1827 | |
| N | 1338 | |
| S | 1332 | |
| G | 1280 | |
| A | 17 | 0.1% |
| C | 11 | 0.1% |
| D | 7 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 18 | 0.2% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 11899 |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 2123 | |
| O | 2118 | |
| E | 1828 | |
| P | 1827 | |
| N | 1338 | |
| S | 1332 | |
| G | 1280 | |
| A | 17 | 0.1% |
| C | 11 | 0.1% |
| D | 7 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 18 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 11899 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 2123 | |
| O | 2118 | |
| E | 1828 | |
| P | 1827 | |
| N | 1338 | |
| S | 1332 | |
| G | 1280 | |
| A | 17 | 0.1% |
| C | 11 | 0.1% |
| D | 7 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 18 | 0.2% |
second_party_entity
Categorical
MISSING
| Distinct | 9 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 0.3% |
| Missing | 87 |
| Missing (%) | 3.2% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| PERSON | |
|---|---|
| ORG | |
| GPE | |
| CARDINAL | 4 |
| LOC | 4 |
| Other values (4) | 11 |
Length
| Max length | 8 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 3 |
| Mean length | 4.3881226 |
| Min length | 3 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 11453 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 14 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 1 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | < 0.1% |
Sample
| 1st row | PERSON |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | PERSON |
| 3rd row | GPE |
| 4th row | GPE |
| 5th row | PERSON |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| PERSON | 1197 | |
| ORG | 744 | |
| GPE | 650 | |
| CARDINAL | 4 | 0.1% |
| LOC | 4 | 0.1% |
| DATE | 4 | 0.1% |
| NORP | 4 | 0.1% |
| FAC | 2 | 0.1% |
| ORDINAL | 1 | < 0.1% |
| (Missing) | 87 | 3.2% |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| person | 1197 | |
| org | 744 | |
| gpe | 650 | |
| cardinal | 4 | 0.2% |
| loc | 4 | 0.2% |
| date | 4 | 0.2% |
| norp | 4 | 0.2% |
| fac | 2 | 0.1% |
| ordinal | 1 | < 0.1% |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 1950 | |
| O | 1950 | |
| P | 1851 | |
| E | 1851 | |
| G | 1394 | |
| N | 1206 | |
| S | 1197 | |
| A | 15 | 0.1% |
| C | 10 | 0.1% |
| D | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 20 | 0.2% |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Uppercase Letter | 11453 |
Most frequent character per category
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 1950 | |
| O | 1950 | |
| P | 1851 | |
| E | 1851 | |
| G | 1394 | |
| N | 1206 | |
| S | 1197 | |
| A | 15 | 0.1% |
| C | 10 | 0.1% |
| D | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 20 | 0.2% |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 11453 |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 1950 | |
| O | 1950 | |
| P | 1851 | |
| E | 1851 | |
| G | 1394 | |
| N | 1206 | |
| S | 1197 | |
| A | 15 | 0.1% |
| C | 10 | 0.1% |
| D | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 20 | 0.2% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 11453 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| R | 1950 | |
| O | 1950 | |
| P | 1851 | |
| E | 1851 | |
| G | 1394 | |
| N | 1206 | |
| S | 1197 | |
| A | 15 | 0.1% |
| C | 10 | 0.1% |
| D | 9 | 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 20 | 0.2% |
Unnamed: 0_y
Categorical
CONSTANT
| Distinct | 1 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | < 0.1% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
| 0 |
|---|
Length
| Max length | 1 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1 |
| Mean length | 1 |
| Min length | 1 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2697 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 1 |
| Distinct categories | 1 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 1 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 0 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.0% |
Sample
| 1st row | 0 |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | 0 |
| 3rd row | 0 |
| 4th row | 0 |
| 5th row | 0 |
Common Values
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
Length
Histogram of lengths of the category
Common Values (Plot)
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Decimal Number | 2697 |
Most frequent character per category
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Common | 2697 |
Most frequent character per script
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2697 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 0 | 2697 |
judges
Text
| Distinct | 547 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 20.3% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 171 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 168 |
| Mean length | 158.80868 |
| Min length | 15 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 428307 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 52 |
| Distinct categories | 4 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 478 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 17.7% |
Sample
| 1st row | Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | John G. Roberts, Jr.;John Paul Stevens;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Sonia Sotomayor |
| 3rd row | Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens |
| 4th row | Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens |
| 5th row | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| g | 2671 | 5.6% |
| h | 2444 | 5.1% |
| m | 2171 | 4.6% |
| a | 1693 | 3.6% |
| bader | 1664 | 3.5% |
| paul | 1595 | 3.4% |
| scalia;anthony | 1477 | 3.1% |
| ginsburg;stephen | 1381 | 2.9% |
| thomas;ruth | 1332 | 2.8% |
| rehnquist;john | 1240 | 2.6% |
| Other values (589) | 29867 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 44838 | 10.5% | |
| n | 33877 | 7.9% |
| e | 29993 | 7.0% |
| a | 29171 | 6.8% |
| r | 26954 | 6.3% |
| ; | 21355 | 5.0% |
| o | 21055 | 4.9% |
| l | 18032 | 4.2% |
| t | 17301 | 4.0% |
| i | 16214 | 3.8% |
| Other values (42) | 169517 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 271386 | |
| Uppercase Letter | 70270 | 16.4% |
| Space Separator | 44838 | 10.5% |
| Other Punctuation | 41813 | 9.8% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 33877 | |
| e | 29993 | |
| a | 29171 | |
| r | 26954 | |
| o | 21055 | 7.8% |
| l | 18032 | 6.6% |
| t | 17301 | 6.4% |
| i | 16214 | 6.0% |
| h | 14076 | 5.2% |
| u | 11632 | 4.3% |
| Other values (16) | 53081 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| S | 10101 | |
| J | 7143 | |
| B | 6863 | |
| A | 6167 | 8.8% |
| R | 4984 | 7.1% |
| G | 4658 | 6.6% |
| W | 4329 | 6.2% |
| H | 3835 | 5.5% |
| C | 3390 | 4.8% |
| M | 2939 | 4.2% |
| Other values (11) | 15861 |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ; | 21355 | |
| . | 16055 | |
| , | 3290 | 7.9% |
| ' | 1113 | 2.7% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 44838 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 341656 | |
| Common | 86651 | 20.2% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| n | 33877 | 9.9% |
| e | 29993 | 8.8% |
| a | 29171 | 8.5% |
| r | 26954 | 7.9% |
| o | 21055 | 6.2% |
| l | 18032 | 5.3% |
| t | 17301 | 5.1% |
| i | 16214 | 4.7% |
| h | 14076 | 4.1% |
| u | 11632 | 3.4% |
| Other values (37) | 123351 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 44838 | ||
| ; | 21355 | |
| . | 16055 | 18.5% |
| , | 3290 | 3.8% |
| ' | 1113 | 1.3% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 428307 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 44838 | 10.5% | |
| n | 33877 | 7.9% |
| e | 29993 | 7.0% |
| a | 29171 | 6.8% |
| r | 26954 | 6.3% |
| ; | 21355 | 5.0% |
| o | 21055 | 4.9% |
| l | 18032 | 4.2% |
| t | 17301 | 4.0% |
| i | 16214 | 3.8% |
| Other values (42) | 169517 |
lower_court
Text
| Distinct | 73 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 2.7% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 67 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 55 |
| Mean length | 43.591398 |
| Min length | 17 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 117566 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 47 |
| Distinct categories | 3 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 1 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 9 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 0.3% |
Sample
| 1st row | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| 3rd row | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| 4th row | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| 5th row | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| court | 2697 | |
| of | 2094 | |
| appeals | 1861 | |
| for | 1810 | |
| the | 1810 | |
| united | 1809 | |
| states | 1809 | |
| circuit | 1798 | |
| ninth | 419 | 2.1% |
| lower | 355 | 1.8% |
| Other values (78) | 3322 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 17087 | ||
| t | 14515 | |
| e | 10442 | 8.9% |
| r | 8146 | 6.9% |
| o | 8012 | 6.8% |
| i | 7276 | 6.2% |
| u | 5148 | 4.4% |
| a | 4633 | 3.9% |
| C | 4528 | 3.9% |
| s | 4487 | 3.8% |
| Other values (37) | 33292 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 86693 | |
| Space Separator | 17087 | 14.5% |
| Uppercase Letter | 13786 | 11.7% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| t | 14515 | |
| e | 10442 | |
| r | 8146 | |
| o | 8012 | |
| i | 7276 | |
| u | 5148 | 5.9% |
| a | 4633 | 5.3% |
| s | 4487 | 5.2% |
| p | 4263 | 4.9% |
| f | 4093 | 4.7% |
| Other values (14) | 15678 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 4528 | |
| S | 2683 | |
| A | 1898 | |
| U | 1812 | |
| N | 818 | 5.9% |
| F | 511 | 3.7% |
| L | 370 | 2.7% |
| P | 363 | 2.6% |
| E | 255 | 1.8% |
| T | 180 | 1.3% |
| Other values (12) | 368 | 2.7% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 17087 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 100479 | |
| Common | 17087 | 14.5% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| t | 14515 | |
| e | 10442 | 10.4% |
| r | 8146 | 8.1% |
| o | 8012 | 8.0% |
| i | 7276 | 7.2% |
| u | 5148 | 5.1% |
| a | 4633 | 4.6% |
| C | 4528 | 4.5% |
| s | 4487 | 4.5% |
| p | 4263 | 4.2% |
| Other values (36) | 29029 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 17087 |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 117566 |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 17087 | ||
| t | 14515 | |
| e | 10442 | 8.9% |
| r | 8146 | 6.9% |
| o | 8012 | 6.8% |
| i | 7276 | 6.2% |
| u | 5148 | 4.4% |
| a | 4633 | 3.9% |
| C | 4528 | 3.9% |
| s | 4487 | 3.8% |
| Other values (37) | 33292 |
legal_question
Text
| Distinct | 2691 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 99.8% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 863 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 410 |
| Mean length | 207.24249 |
| Min length | 26 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 558933 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 96 |
| Distinct categories | 15 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2686 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 99.6% |
Sample
| 1st row | <p>Does a single, isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establish an official policy or practice of a municipality that renders it liable for damages under Section 1983?</p> |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | <p>1) Does a city employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his city-issued pager when the police department has no official privacy policy for the pagers?</p> <p>2) Did the Ninth Circuit contravene Supreme Court precedent by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages?</p> |
| 3rd row | <p>(1) Does the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 pre-empt the New Jersey statute?</p> <p>(2) Does the New Jersey's statute violate the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution?</p> |
| 4th row | <p>Did New Jersey's waste importation law violate the Commerce Clause?</p> |
| 5th row | <p>May people whose rights guaranteed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are violated seek remedies other than those allowed by the act?</p> |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 7144 | 8.6% |
| of | 3677 | 4.4% |
| a | 3019 | 3.6% |
| to | 2504 | 3.0% |
| in | 1225 | 1.5% |
| and | 1078 | 1.3% |
| that | 992 | 1.2% |
| for | 899 | 1.1% |
| p>does | 842 | 1.0% |
| an | 707 | 0.8% |
| Other values (9152) | 61143 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 80033 | ||
| e | 55065 | 9.9% |
| t | 44806 | 8.0% |
| i | 35015 | 6.3% |
| a | 32605 | 5.8% |
| o | 32238 | 5.8% |
| n | 31595 | 5.7% |
| r | 28027 | 5.0% |
| s | 26227 | 4.7% |
| h | 16383 | 2.9% |
| Other values (86) | 176939 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 429262 | |
| Space Separator | 80078 | 14.3% |
| Uppercase Letter | 15616 | 2.8% |
| Math Symbol | 13058 | 2.3% |
| Other Punctuation | 11333 | 2.0% |
| Decimal Number | 3587 | 0.6% |
| Control | 3111 | 0.6% |
| Close Punctuation | 804 | 0.1% |
| Dash Punctuation | 802 | 0.1% |
| Open Punctuation | 636 | 0.1% |
| Other values (5) | 646 | 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 55065 | |
| t | 44806 | |
| i | 35015 | 8.2% |
| a | 32605 | 7.6% |
| o | 32238 | 7.5% |
| n | 31595 | 7.4% |
| r | 28027 | 6.5% |
| s | 26227 | 6.1% |
| h | 16383 | 3.8% |
| l | 16267 | 3.8% |
| Other values (17) | 111034 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| A | 2585 | |
| D | 2289 | |
| C | 2237 | |
| S | 1528 | |
| F | 1274 | |
| I | 973 | 6.2% |
| P | 580 | 3.7% |
| E | 550 | 3.5% |
| U | 534 | 3.4% |
| M | 491 | 3.1% |
| Other values (16) | 2575 |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| / | 3305 | |
| ? | 3179 | |
| , | 1670 | |
| . | 1111 | 9.8% |
| ' | 1101 | 9.7% |
| " | 855 | 7.5% |
| § | 74 | 0.7% |
| ; | 13 | 0.1% |
| : | 12 | 0.1% |
| & | 11 | 0.1% |
| Other values (2) | 2 | < 0.1% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 912 | |
| 2 | 598 | |
| 9 | 439 | |
| 4 | 300 | 8.4% |
| 0 | 286 | 8.0% |
| 3 | 260 | 7.2% |
| 6 | 220 | 6.1% |
| 8 | 215 | 6.0% |
| 5 | 200 | 5.6% |
| 7 | 157 | 4.4% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 777 | |
| — | 17 | 2.1% |
| – | 6 | 0.7% |
| ― | 2 | 0.2% |
Math Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| < | 6524 | |
| > | 6524 | |
| = | 10 | 0.1% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 80033 | ||
| 45 | 0.1% |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 788 | |
| ] | 16 | 2.0% |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 620 | |
| [ | 16 | 2.5% |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 361 | |
| ” | 130 | 26.5% |
Initial Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| “ | 131 | |
| ‘ | 5 | 3.7% |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 3111 |
Currency Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| $ | 15 |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 3 |
Line Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 444878 | |
| Common | 114055 | 20.4% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 55065 | |
| t | 44806 | 10.1% |
| i | 35015 | 7.9% |
| a | 32605 | 7.3% |
| o | 32238 | 7.2% |
| n | 31595 | 7.1% |
| r | 28027 | 6.3% |
| s | 26227 | 5.9% |
| h | 16383 | 3.7% |
| l | 16267 | 3.7% |
| Other values (43) | 126650 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 80033 | ||
| < | 6524 | 5.7% |
| > | 6524 | 5.7% |
| / | 3305 | 2.9% |
| ? | 3179 | 2.8% |
| 3111 | 2.7% | |
| , | 1670 | 1.5% |
| . | 1111 | 1.0% |
| ' | 1101 | 1.0% |
| 1 | 912 | 0.8% |
| Other values (33) | 6585 | 5.8% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 558159 | |
| Punctuation | 654 | 0.1% |
| None | 120 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 80033 | ||
| e | 55065 | 9.9% |
| t | 44806 | 8.0% |
| i | 35015 | 6.3% |
| a | 32605 | 5.8% |
| o | 32238 | 5.8% |
| n | 31595 | 5.7% |
| r | 28027 | 5.0% |
| s | 26227 | 4.7% |
| h | 16383 | 2.9% |
| Other values (74) | 176165 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 361 | |
| “ | 131 | 20.0% |
| ” | 130 | 19.9% |
| — | 17 | 2.6% |
| – | 6 | 0.9% |
| ‘ | 5 | 0.8% |
| ― | 2 | 0.3% |
| 1 | 0.2% | |
| … | 1 | 0.2% |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| § | 74 | |
| 45 | ||
| é | 1 | 0.8% |
conclusion
Text
| Distinct | 2691 |
|---|---|
| Distinct (%) | 99.8% |
| Missing | 0 |
| Missing (%) | 0.0% |
| Memory size | 21.2 KiB |
Length
| Max length | 5250 |
|---|---|
| Median length | 1637 |
| Mean length | 1011.3634 |
| Min length | 22 |
Characters and Unicode
| Total characters | 2727647 |
|---|---|
| Distinct characters | 99 |
| Distinct categories | 15 ? |
| Distinct scripts | 2 ? |
| Distinct blocks | 3 ? |
The Unicode Standard assigns character properties to each code point, which can be used to analyse textual variables.
Unique
| Unique | 2688 ? |
|---|---|
| Unique (%) | 99.7% |
Sample
| 1st row | <p>No. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the four-justice plurality. The plurality held that the district court’s instructions to the jury improperly allowed a plaintiff to impose liability on the city without proof of a single action taken by a municipal policy maker. The plurality further concluded that proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability on a city for a policy that is not in and of itself unconstitutional.</p> <p>Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which he argued that Section 1983 does not permit a city to be held liable on a theory of strict responsibility for its non-policy-making employees. Instead, municipalities are liable for constitutional deprivations caused by an official policy or custom. Because the jury could have found the city liable solely because the police officer’s actions were so excessive and out of the ordinary, Justice Brennan concurred with the judgment reached by the Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.</p> <p>Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent in which he argued that cities should be held liable under Section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their agents that are performed in the court of their official duties.</p> <p> </p> |
|---|---|
| 2nd row | <p>Not answered. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the City of Ontario did not violate its employees' Fourth Amendment rights because the city's search of Mr. Quon's text messages was reasonable. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that even assuming that Mr. Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, the city's search of them was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope. In reaching its conclusion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's "least intrusive" means approach to the issue.</p> <p>Justice John Paul Stevens concurred. He observed that the majority had not settled on one of the three approaches enunciated in <em>O'Connor v. Ortega</em> for determining the parameters of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." He reasoned that under any of the three approaches, Mr. Quon's expectations were not violated. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He disagreed that the Court tacitly reaffirmed the <em>O'Connor</em> framework for determining whether the Fourth Amendment applies to public employees, arguing that it was "standardless" and "unsupported."</p> <p><em>Learn more about the Roberts Court and the Fourth Amendment in <a href="http://projects.oyez.org/shifting-scales/">Shifting Scales</a>, a nonpartisan Oyez resource.</em></p> |
| 3rd row | <p>Perhaps and not addressed. In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that the pre-emption question "should be resolved before the constitutional issue." Since that question "depends primarily on statutory and not constitutional interpretation" of the 1976 Act, the case was remanded to the New Jersey Supreme Court.</p> |
| 4th row | <p>Yes. The Court held that the law violated the principle of nondiscrimination as it treated out-of-state waste differently than waste produced within the state. Since New Jersey could not demonstrate a legitimate reason for distinguishing between foreign and domestically produced waste, it was clear to the Court that the state had "overtly moved to slow or freeze the flow of commerce for protectionist reasons."</p> |
| 5th row | <p>No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Abrams could not enforce the limitations of the Telecommunications Act on local authorities through federal liability law, because the act provides its own judicial remedy. Congress could not have meant the judicial remedy expressly authorized by the Telecommunications Act to co-exist with an alternative remedy.</p> |
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| the | 38090 | 9.1% |
| of | 12681 | 3.0% |
| that | 12334 | 2.9% |
| to | 11359 | 2.7% |
| a | 10813 | 2.6% |
| in | 9229 | 2.2% |
| court | 7346 | 1.7% |
| and | 7287 | 1.7% |
| justice | 5788 | 1.4% |
| not | 5335 | 1.3% |
| Other values (19274) | 300234 |
Most occurring characters
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416154 | ||
| e | 272634 | 10.0% |
| t | 231010 | 8.5% |
| i | 172675 | 6.3% |
| n | 160969 | 5.9% |
| a | 158704 | 5.8% |
| o | 157547 | 5.8% |
| r | 137765 | 5.1% |
| s | 133891 | 4.9% |
| h | 99077 | 3.6% |
| Other values (89) | 787221 |
Most occurring categories
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Lowercase Letter | 2131630 | |
| Space Separator | 416553 | 15.3% |
| Uppercase Letter | 75513 | 2.8% |
| Other Punctuation | 56131 | 2.1% |
| Math Symbol | 22397 | 0.8% |
| Decimal Number | 8592 | 0.3% |
| Control | 4732 | 0.2% |
| Dash Punctuation | 4228 | 0.2% |
| Final Punctuation | 3394 | 0.1% |
| Close Punctuation | 1592 | 0.1% |
| Other values (5) | 2885 | 0.1% |
Most frequent character per category
Lowercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 272634 | |
| t | 231010 | |
| i | 172675 | 8.1% |
| n | 160969 | 7.6% |
| a | 158704 | 7.4% |
| o | 157547 | 7.4% |
| r | 137765 | 6.5% |
| s | 133891 | 6.3% |
| h | 99077 | 4.6% |
| d | 85478 | 4.0% |
| Other values (18) | 521880 |
Uppercase Letter
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| C | 12693 | |
| J | 9144 | |
| A | 7307 | |
| S | 7079 | 9.4% |
| T | 6549 | 8.7% |
| I | 3941 | 5.2% |
| B | 3323 | 4.4% |
| F | 2697 | 3.6% |
| R | 2513 | 3.3% |
| P | 2208 | 2.9% |
| Other values (16) | 18059 |
Other Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| . | 22787 | |
| , | 17224 | |
| / | 5928 | 10.6% |
| " | 5476 | 9.8% |
| ' | 3966 | 7.1% |
| ; | 281 | 0.5% |
| : | 212 | 0.4% |
| § | 181 | 0.3% |
| & | 42 | 0.1% |
| % | 13 | < 0.1% |
| Other values (4) | 21 | < 0.1% |
Decimal Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 1 | 1483 | |
| 2 | 1019 | |
| 5 | 935 | |
| 4 | 924 | |
| 3 | 855 | |
| 6 | 722 | |
| 9 | 711 | |
| 0 | 693 | |
| 8 | 654 | |
| 7 | 596 |
Math Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| < | 11123 | |
| > | 11123 | |
| = | 151 | 0.7% |
Dash Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| - | 4039 | |
| — | 150 | 3.5% |
| – | 39 | 0.9% |
Space Separator
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416154 | ||
| 399 | 0.1% |
Control
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 4730 | ||
| 2 | < 0.1% |
Final Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2156 | |
| ” | 1238 |
Initial Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| “ | 1240 | |
| ‘ | 37 | 2.9% |
Close Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ) | 1226 | |
| ] | 366 | 23.0% |
Open Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ( | 1177 | |
| [ | 366 | 23.7% |
Connector Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| _ | 34 |
Currency Symbol
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| $ | 30 |
Other Number
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ½ | 1 |
Most occurring scripts
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| Latin | 2207143 | |
| Common | 520504 | 19.1% |
Most frequent character per script
Latin
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| e | 272634 | |
| t | 231010 | 10.5% |
| i | 172675 | 7.8% |
| n | 160969 | 7.3% |
| a | 158704 | 7.2% |
| o | 157547 | 7.1% |
| r | 137765 | 6.2% |
| s | 133891 | 6.1% |
| h | 99077 | 4.5% |
| d | 85478 | 3.9% |
| Other values (44) | 597393 |
Common
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416154 | ||
| . | 22787 | 4.4% |
| , | 17224 | 3.3% |
| < | 11123 | 2.1% |
| > | 11123 | 2.1% |
| / | 5928 | 1.1% |
| " | 5476 | 1.1% |
| 4730 | 0.9% | |
| - | 4039 | 0.8% |
| ' | 3966 | 0.8% |
| Other values (35) | 17954 | 3.4% |
Most occurring blocks
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ASCII | 2722191 | |
| Punctuation | 4871 | 0.2% |
| None | 585 | < 0.1% |
Most frequent character per block
ASCII
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 416154 | ||
| e | 272634 | 10.0% |
| t | 231010 | 8.5% |
| i | 172675 | 6.3% |
| n | 160969 | 5.9% |
| a | 158704 | 5.8% |
| o | 157547 | 5.8% |
| r | 137765 | 5.1% |
| s | 133891 | 4.9% |
| h | 99077 | 3.6% |
| Other values (77) | 781765 |
Punctuation
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| ’ | 2156 | |
| “ | 1240 | |
| ” | 1238 | |
| — | 150 | 3.1% |
| – | 39 | 0.8% |
| ‘ | 37 | 0.8% |
| … | 11 | 0.2% |
None
| Value | Count | Frequency (%) |
| 399 | ||
| § | 181 | |
| í | 3 | 0.5% |
| ½ | 1 | 0.2% |
| ç | 1 | 0.2% |
A simple visualization of nullity by column.
Nullity matrix is a data-dense display which lets you quickly visually pick out patterns in data completion.
| Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 0.1 | Unnamed: 0_x | ID | name | href | docket | term | first_party | second_party | facts | facts_len | majority_vote | minority_vote | first_party_winner | decision_type | disposition | issue_area | first_party_entity | second_party_entity | Unnamed: 0_y | judges | lower_court | legal_question | conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 471 | 53057 | City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1919 | 83-1919 | 1984 | City of Oklahoma City | Rose Marie Tuttle, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Tuttle | <p>On October 10, 1980, an Oklahoma City police officer shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside a bar. Rose Marie Tuttle, Albert’s widow, sued the police officer and the city in district court under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows an individual to recover damages against a party who “acting under color of state law” deprives another of his constitutional rights. The district court instructed the jury that the city could be held liable only if the incident had been caused by a municipal “policy,” but a single, unusually excessive use of force could support a finding that the city was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent in the training or supervision of its police force and was therefore liable under Section 1983. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the police officer but against the city and awarded Tuttle’s estate $1.5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.</p>\n | 952 | 7 | 1 | True | plurality opinion | reversed | Civil Rights | GPE | PERSON | 0 | Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | <p>Does a single, isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establish an official policy or practice of a municipality that renders it liable for damages under Section 1983?</p>\n | <p>No. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the four-justice plurality. The plurality held that the district court’s instructions to the jury improperly allowed a plaintiff to impose liability on the city without proof of a single action taken by a municipal policy maker. The plurality further concluded that proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability on a city for a policy that is not in and of itself unconstitutional.</p>\n<p>Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which he argued that Section 1983 does not permit a city to be held liable on a theory of strict responsibility for its non-policy-making employees. Instead, municipalities are liable for constitutional deprivations caused by an official policy or custom. Because the jury could have found the city liable solely because the police officer’s actions were so excessive and out of the ordinary, Justice Brennan concurred with the judgment reached by the Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.</p>\n<p>Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent in which he argued that cities should be held liable under Section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their agents that are performed in the court of their official duties.</p>\n<p> </p>\n |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 2071 | 55708 | City of Ontario v. Quon | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 | 08-1332 | 2009 | City of Ontario, California et al. | Jeff Quon, et al. | <p>Employees of the City of Ontario, California police department filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in a California federal district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They alleged Fourth Amendment violations in relation to the police department's review of text messages made by an employee on a city issued text-message pager. While the city did not have an official text-messaging privacy policy, it did have a general "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy." The policy in part stated that "[t]he City of Ontario reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice," and that "[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." Employees were told verbally that the text-messaging pagers were considered e-mail and subject to the general policy. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.</p>\n<p>On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court held that city employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the text messages they sent on their city-issued pagers because there was no text message privacy policy in place. Moreover, the court noted that the police department's review of the text messages was unreasonable because it could have used "less intrusive methods" to determine whether employees' had properly used the text messaging service.</p>\n | 1494 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Criminal Procedure | GPE | PERSON | 0 | John G. Roberts, Jr.;John Paul Stevens;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Sonia Sotomayor | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>1) Does a city employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his city-issued pager when the police department has no official privacy policy for the pagers?</p>\n<p>2) Did the Ninth Circuit contravene Supreme Court precedent by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages?</p>\n | <p>Not answered. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the City of Ontario did not violate its employees' Fourth Amendment rights because the city's search of Mr. Quon's text messages was reasonable. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that even assuming that Mr. Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, the city's search of them was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope. In reaching its conclusion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's "least intrusive" means approach to the issue.</p>\n<p>Justice John Paul Stevens concurred. He observed that the majority had not settled on one of the three approaches enunciated in <em>O'Connor v. Ortega</em> for determining the parameters of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." He reasoned that under any of the three approaches, Mr. Quon's expectations were not violated. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He disagreed that the Court tacitly reaffirmed the <em>O'Connor</em> framework for determining whether the Fourth Amendment applies to public employees, arguing that it was "standardless" and "unsupported."</p>\n<p><em>Learn more about the Roberts Court and the Fourth Amendment in <a href="http://projects.oyez.org/shifting-scales/">Shifting Scales</a>, a nonpartisan Oyez resource.</em></p>\n |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 169 | 51555 | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1150 | 75-1150 | 1976 | City of Philadelphia et al. | New Jersey et al. | <p>A New Jersey statute prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste into the state, except for garbage for swine feed. The City of Philadelphia challenged the statute, alleging it was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of Article I and pre-empted by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the statute. Congress then passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.</p>\n | 430 | 5 | 4 | True | per curiam | vacated/remanded | Economic Activity | GPE | GPE | 0 | Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens | New Jersey Supreme Court | <p>(1) Does the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 pre-empt the New Jersey statute?</p>\n<p>(2) Does the New Jersey's statute violate the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution?</p>\n | <p>Perhaps and not addressed. In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that the pre-emption question "should be resolved before the constitutional issue." Since that question "depends primarily on statutory and not constitutional interpretation" of the 1976 Act, the case was remanded to the New Jersey Supreme Court.</p>\n |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 230 | 51844 | City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-404 | 77-404 | 1977 | City of Philadelphia | New Jersey | <p>A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."</p>\n | 162 | 7 | 2 | True | majority opinion | reversed | Economic Activity | NaN | GPE | 0 | Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens | New Jersey Supreme Court | <p>Did New Jersey's waste importation law violate the Commerce Clause?</p>\n | <p>Yes. The Court held that the law violated the principle of nondiscrimination as it treated out-of-state waste differently than waste produced within the state. Since New Jersey could not demonstrate a legitimate reason for distinguishing between foreign and domestically produced waste, it was clear to the Court that the state had "overtly moved to slow or freeze the flow of commerce for protectionist reasons."</p>\n |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 1626 | 55235 | City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1601 | 03-1601 | 2004 | City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, et al. | Mark J. Abrams | <p>Rancho Palos Verdes, a city in California, gave Mark Abrams a permit to construct an antenna on his property for amateur use. But when the city learned Abrams used the antenna for commercial purposes, the city forced Abrams to stop until he got a commercial use permit. Abrams applied and the city refused to give him the permit. Abrams then sued in federal district court, alleging the city violated his rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Abrams sought damages under a federal liability law that allowed people to sue for damages for federal rights violations.</p>\n<p>The district court agreed with Abrams and ordered the city to give Abrams the permit. But the court refused Abrams' request for damages under the separate federal liability law. The court said Congress intended for violations of rights under the Telecommunications Act to include only remedies specifically found in that act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that because the act did not contain a "comprehensive remedial scheme," Abrams could seek damages under other federal laws.</p>\n | 1094 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights | GPE | PERSON | 0 | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>May people whose rights guaranteed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are violated seek remedies other than those allowed by the act?</p>\n | <p>No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Abrams could not enforce the limitations of the Telecommunications Act on local authorities through federal liability law, because the act provides its own judicial remedy. Congress could not have meant the judicial remedy expressly authorized by the Telecommunications Act to co-exist with an alternative remedy.</p>\n |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 477 | 53099 | City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1360 | 84-1360 | 1985 | City of Renton | Playtime Theatres, Inc. | <p>The city of Renton, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating with in 1,000 feet of "any residential zone, single-or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school." Playtime Theatres, Inc., challenged the ordinance and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement.</p>\n | 342 | 7 | 2 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment | GPE | ORG | 0 | Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>Did the Renton ordinance violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendment?</p>\n | <p>In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the zoning ordinance did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that the ordinance was a form of time, place, and manner regulation, not a ban on adult theaters altogether. The Court reasoned that the law was not aimed at the content of the films shown at adult motion picture theaters, "but rather the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community." The Court found that the ordinance was designed to serve a substantial governmental interest in preserving the quality of life and allowed for "reasonable alternative avenues of communication."</p>\n |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 619 | 53621 | City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-998 | 87-998 | 1988 | City of Richmond | J. A. Croson Company | <p>In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.</p>\n | 330 | 6 | 3 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Civil Rights | NaN | ORG | 0 | Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Harry A. Blackmun;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | <p>Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p>\n | <p>In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that "generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts. Justice O'Connor's opinion noted that the 30 percent quota could not be tied to "any injury suffered by anyone," and was an impermissible employment of a suspect classification. O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs."</p>\n |
| 7 | 7 | 7 | 500 | 53212 | City of Riverside v. Rivera | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-224 | 85-224 | 1985 | City of Riverside | Rivera | <p>In 1975, eight Chicano individuals were attending a party that was broken up by the Riverside police using tear gas and physical force without a warrant. Subsequently, the eight individuals filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and various police officers under several federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The jury found in the individuals' favor and awarded $33,350 in compensatory and punitive damages. The individuals also sought attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 in the amount of $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended by their two attorneys at $125 per hour and 84.5 hours expended by law clerks at $25 per hour. Finding both the hours and rates reasonable, the District Court awarded the requested amount, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the fee award was not excessive merely because it exceeded the amount of damages awarded by the jury.</p>\n | 1018 | 5 | 4 | False | plurality opinion | affirmed | Attorneys | NaN | PERSON | 0 | Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>Is an award of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 "unreasonable" within the meaning of the statute if it exceeds the amount of damages recovered by the plaintiff in the underlying civil rights action?</p>\n | <p>No. In an opinion delivered by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held, 5-4, that there was no requirement under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 that attorneys' fees be proportionate to the amount of damages a civil rights plaintiff might recover. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens, reasoned that such plaintiffs seek to vindicate important constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms, and a proportionality requirement would seriously undermine Congress's purpose under the Act to insure the availability of counsel in civil rights cases. Concurring, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., reasoned that neither the prior decisions of the Supreme Court nor the legislative history of the Act supported such a requirement.</p>\n |
| 8 | 8 | 8 | 1627 | 55236 | City of San Diego v. Roe | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1669 | 03-1669 | 2004 | City of San Diego, California | John Roe | <p>John Roe, a San Diego police officer, was fired for selling a video on eBay that showed him stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. He then sued the city in federal district court and alleged his firing violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The district court ruled against the officer; the Ninth Circuit reversed.</p>\n | 350 | 9 | 0 | True | per curiam | reversed | First Amendment | GPE | PERSON | 0 | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>San Diego fired John Roe from the city police force after he made and sold online a video showing him engaging in sexually explicit acts. Did this violate John Roe's First Amendment right to free speech?</p>\n | <p>No. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that firing Roe for his behavior and "speech" did not violate the First Amendment. Government employers, the Court wrote, could restrict their employees' speech in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. But government employees had the right to speak on matters of public concern, such as on government policies of interest to the public. In this case, however, Roe's activities did not inform the public about the police department and were also detrimental to the force.</p>\n |
| 9 | 9 | 9 | 1639 | 55248 | City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-855 | 03-855 | 2004 | City of Sherrill, New York | Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al. | <p>In the late 18th century, Congress set aside most of the tribal land of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York as a reservation. The tribe later sold off much of the reservation. In the 1990s members of the tribe began to buy back pieces of the land. The tribe said the reacquired land was part of a reservation and therefore exempt from state and municipal taxes. The City of Sherrill - which encompassed some of the tribe's property - argued the land was not tax-exempt. The Oneidas sued Sherrill in federal district court and alleged the land was recognized by the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua as part of their historic reservation. The Oneidas also pointed to the 1790 Non- Intercourse Act that required federal consent for Indian land to lose its reservation status. Sherrill argued the land lost its reservation status after leaving the Oneidas' ownership originally. The district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the Oneidas.</p>\n | 959 | 8 | 1 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights | GPE | ORG | 0 | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | <p>Were land parcels once owned by the Oneida Nation, sold in 1807 but repurchased in the 1990s by the Nation's descedant tribe, part of an Indian Reservation and thus exempt from local taxes?</p>\n | <p>No. In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that standards of federal Indian law and federal equity precluded the Tribe from unilaterally reviving its ancient sovereignty over the land at issue. The Court pointed to the "longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of central New York and its inhabitants"and the fact that regulatory authority over the land had been exercised by state and local government for 200 years. By giving up the land in the early 19th century, the Oneidas had "relinquished governmental reins and could not regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders."</p>\n |
| Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 0.1 | Unnamed: 0_x | ID | name | href | docket | term | first_party | second_party | facts | facts_len | majority_vote | minority_vote | first_party_winner | decision_type | disposition | issue_area | first_party_entity | second_party_entity | Unnamed: 0_y | judges | lower_court | legal_question | conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2687 | 2687 | 2687 | 1367 | 54953 | Zelman v. Simmons-Harris | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1751 | 00-1751 | 2001 | Zelman | Simmons-Harris | <p>Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children. In the 1999-2000 school year 82 percent of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation and 96 percent of the students participating in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line. A group of Ohio taxpayers sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.</p>\n | 966 | 5 | 4 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment | PERSON | PERSON | 0 | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | <p>Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?</p>\n | <p>No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that, because Ohio's program is part of Ohio's general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients and the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."</p>\n |
| 2688 | 2688 | 2688 | 2793 | 62139 | Zenith Radio Corporation v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1970/80 | 80 | 1970 | Zenith Radio Corporation | Hazeltine Research, Inc. | <p>After refusing to renew a patent licensing agreement, Zenith Radio Corp., a radio and television manufacturer, was sued by Hazeltine Research, Inc., for patent infringement in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Zenith counterclaimed, alleging anti-trust violations, misuse of patents, and a conspiracy to restrain trade in Canada, England, and Australia. Zenith asked for treble damages and injunctive relief. Zenith contended that Hazeltine's license forced them to pay for use of unpatented products and that Hazeltine had illegally conspired with foreign patent pools to prevent Zenith from expanding into those markets.</p>\n<p>Before trial, Zenith had stipulated that Hazeltine and its parent corporation were one entity for the purposes of litigation. The District Court entered judgment against Hazeltine and its parent corporation, awarding Zenith treble damages and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the damages award, but otherwise reversed the District Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated all judgments against Hazeltine's parent corporation because Zenith's pretrial stipulation did not properly designate the parent corporation as a party to the litigation.</p>\n | 1260 | 9 | 0 | True | majority opinion | reversed/remanded | Economic Activity | ORG | ORG | 0 | John M. Harlan II;Hugo L. Black;William O. Douglas;Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | <p>Should Hazeltine's parent corporation be bound by the District Court's judgment? Was Zenith injured by Hazeltine's conspiracy with foreign patent pools?</p>\n | <p>No, Yes as to Canada. In a 7-1 decision Justice Byron R. White delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the Court of Appeals decision to vacate the judgments against Hazeltine's parent corporation. The Supreme Court also held that damages were only proper with respect to the Canadian market because it was the only market in which Zenith had sustained injury. The Supreme Court reinstated the District Court's injunction against Hazeltine's conspiracy to restrict trade in foreign markets. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether Hazeltine conditioned the grant of its licenses on the payment of royalties for unpatented products.</p>\n<p>Justice John M. Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part, objecting to the majority's apparent double standard that royalties provisions that measure royalties by a percentage of the licensees sales is lawful if included for the convenience of both parties, but unlawful if insisted on by the patentee.</p>\n |
| 2689 | 2689 | 2689 | 892 | 54439 | Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Company | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1361 | 94-1361 | 1995 | Zicherman | Korean Air Lines Company | <p>In 1983, Korean Air Lines (KAL) Flight KE007, en route from Alaska to South Korea entered the airspace of the former Soviet Union and was shot down. All 269 people on board were killed, including Muriel Kole. Subsequently, Marjorie Zicherman and Muriel Mahalek, Kole's sister and mother sued KAL under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which governs international air transportation. Zicherman and Mahalek were awarded loss-of-society damages. The Court of Appeals set aside the verdict, holding that general maritime law supplied the substantive compensatory damages law to be applied in an action under the Warsaw Convention and that, under such law, a plaintiff can recover for loss of society only if he was the decedent's dependent at the time of death. The appellate court found that Mahalek had not established dependent status and remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Zicherman was a dependent of the decedent.</p>\n | 954 | 9 | 0 | False | majority opinion | reversed in-part | Economic Activity | PERSON | ORG | 0 | William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | <p>May a plaintiff, in a suit brought under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention governing international air transportation, recover damages for loss of society resulting from the death of a relative in a plane crash on the high seas?</p>\n | <p>No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the relatives could not recover loss-of-society damages under the Warsaw Convention because Article 17 left it to the adjudicating court to specify what harm was cognizable as determined by domestic law, which is supplied by the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Justice Scalia then reasoned that, because DOHSA permits only pecuniary damages, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover loss-of-society damages. The Court, therefore, did not reach the question whether, under general maritime law, dependency is a prerequisite for loss-of-society damages. Thus, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgement insofar as it permitted Zicherman to recover loss-of-society damages if she could establish her dependency on the decedent and affirmed its decision with regards to vacating the award of loss-of-society damages to Mahalek is affirmed.</p>\n |
| 2690 | 2690 | 2690 | 3007 | 62759 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1358 | 15-1358 | 2016 | James W. Ziglar | Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et. al. | <p dir="ltr">The respondents in this case are a group of male, non-U.S. citizens, most of whom are Muslim of Middle Eastern origin who were detained after the September 11, 2001 attacks and treated as “of interest” in the government’s investigation of these events. In their original claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they were detained without notice of the charges against them or information about how they were determined to be “of interest,” that their access to counsel and the courts was interfered with, and that they were subjected to excessively harsh treatment during their detention. They also asserted that their race, ethnicity, and national origin played a determinative role in the decision to detain them. The plaintiffs sued a number of government officials and argued that the government used their status as non-citizens to detain them when the government’s real purpose was to investigate whether they were terrorists and that the conditions of their confinement violated their Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. After a series of motions to dismiss, the district court dismissed the claims regarding the length of confinement but allowed the Constitutional claims to proceed. Both the plaintiffs and defendants appealed various aspects of that ruling. </p>\n<p>While that appeal was pending, some of the plaintiffs settled their claims against the government and the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which held that a complaint must allege sufficient facts to be plausible on its face and to allow a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the claimed conduct. Based on these events, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the length of confinement claims but remanded the conditions of confinement claims and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The appellate court again dismissed some of the claims and allowed others to proceed.</p>\n | 1961 | 4 | 2 | True | plurality opinion | reversed/remanded | Civil Rights | PERSON | PERSON | 0 | Anthony M. Kennedy;John G. Roberts, Jr.;Clarence Thomas;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Stephen G. Breyer;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Sonia Sotomayor;Elena Kagan;Neil Gorsuch | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | <ol><li>How broadly should “context” be defined for the purpose of determining whether claims arose in a “new context” in regards to holding a government official as personally liable for committing a Constitutional violation?</li>\n<li>Are the government defendants in these cases entitled to qualified immunity from liability?</li>\n</ol> | <p> In suits against government officials for personally violating the Constitution, “context” should be defined narrowly for the purpose of determining whether a claim arose in a “new context,” and the government officials in this case are entitled to qualified immunity. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 4-2 majority. The Court held that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents established an implied right of action to sue a federal official for money damages when the official violated constitutional rights. However, the Court had declined to extend the Bivens precedent because Congress had not enacted a statute that allowed for this type of remedy. Therefore, in order to respect the separation of powers, the situations in which a court determined that there was an implied right of action for monetary damages against a federal official should be rare. If there were “special factors counselling hesitation,” a court should not determine that a Bivens remedy was available. Although the Court had not defined “special factors,” they must be present in cases in which is is doubtful that Congress intended to allow for money damages against federal officials. Based on this background, for the purposes of determining whether a Bivens claim arises in a “new context” and must be subject to a special factors analysis, the term “context” should be defined narrowly. Because this case differed in a meaningful way from those that the Court has decided under Bivens previously, it arose in a new context and the special factors analysis should apply. The national security, policy, and separations of powers concerns here were all special factors that counseled against a determination that a Bivens implied right of action was appropriate in this case. The Court also determined that the government officials in this case were entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officials in their positions would not have known that their conduct was unlawful under clearly established law regarding how a conspiracy applies to a governmental entity.</p>\n<p dir="ltr">In his opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he agreed with the majority that the Bivens precedent did not extend to this case. However, Justice Thomas argued that the qualified immunity analysis diverged from what Congress had intended. Instead of determining whether a reasonable official would have known that his actions violated clearly established law, qualified immunity for constitutional violations should be determined by what the common law historically would have covered. </p>\n<p dir="ltr">Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissent in which he argued that the plaintiffs in this case pleaded facts that were well within the scope of established Bivens law, and therefore the claims should be allowed to proceed. A case did not fall under Bivens if it arose out of a new context, which meant that the case was fundamentally different from those that the Court had considered before. In this case, the harms the plaintiffs claim to have suffered were very similar to those that the Court addressed in Bivens, and Congress had not indicated that it intended to withdraw the Bivens remedy in such a situation. Even if this case arose in a new context, the Bivens remedy should still be available because there was no alternative, existing process for protecting their interests and vindicating the harms they already suffered. Justice Breyer also argued that the Bivens precedent included sufficient safeguards to prevent judicial overreach and therefore there were no “special factors” that counseled hesitation from the courts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the dissent.</p>\n<p dir="ltr">Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the discussion or decision of this case. </p>\n<p> </p>\n |
| 2691 | 2691 | 2691 | 2173 | 55824 | Zivotofsky v. Clinton | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-699 | 10-699 | 2011 | M. B. Z., By His Parents and Guardians Ari Z. Zivotofsky, et ux. | Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State | <p>Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky is a United States citizen born on October 17, 2002 in Jerusalem. In December 2002, Zivotofsky's mother filed an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and a United States passport for petitioner, listing his place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel." United States diplomatic officials informed petitioner's mother that State Department policy required them to record "Jerusalem" as petitioner's place of birth, which is how petitioner's place of birth appears in the documents he received.</p>\n<p>On his behalf, Zivotofsky's parents filed this suit against the Secretary of State seeking an order compelling the State Department to identify petitioner's place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel" in the official documents. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed the complaint after concluding that petitioner lacked standing, and that the complaint raised a nonjusticiable political question. United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that petitioner had standing and that a more complete record was needed on the foreign policy implications of recording "Israel" as Zivotofsky's place of birth.</p>\n<p>On remand, the State Department explained, among other things, that in the present circumstances if "Israel" were to be recorded as the place of birth of a person born in Jerusalem, such "unilateral action" by the United States on one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians "would critically compromise" the United States' ability to help further the Middle East peace process. The district court again dismissed on political question grounds. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Zivotofsky's claim is foreclosed because it raises a nonjusticiable political question.</p>\n | 1851 | 8 | 1 | True | majority opinion | vacated/remanded | Miscellaneous | PERSON | ORG | 0 | John G. Roberts, Jr.;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Sonia Sotomayor;Elena Kagan | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | <p>Does the political question doctrine deprive a federal court of jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute that explicitly directs the Secretary of State how to record the birthplace of an American citizen on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a passport?</p>\n | <p>No. In an 8-to-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for further consideration on the merits. Roberts argued that Zivotofsky's claim did not involve a political question and is thus justiciable. Resolution of Zivotofsky's claim would require the Judiciary to vindicate Zivotofsky's statutory rights, a matter within its competence to resolve. Reaching a decision is not simple, however. A full airing on the merits will frame the issues for further review.</p>\n<p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer joined Part I of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion. She wrote separately to emphasize that the inquiry required by the political question doctrine was more demanding than the majority suggested with its opinion.</p>\n<p>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a special concurrence. He noted that determining the constitutionality of an Act of Congress could present a political question, but he did not think that the narrow issue before the court fell into that category of cases.</p>\n<p>Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. He wrote that a decision would touch upon several very sensitive foreign policy matters and that adjudication of the petitioner's claim would require the courts to answer a political question as defined by the Court's decision in <em>Baker v. Carr. </em></p>\n |
| 2692 | 2692 | 2692 | 2415 | 56102 | Zivotofsky v. Kerry | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-628 | 13-628 | 2014 | M. B. Z., By His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. Zivotofsky, et ux. | John Kerry, Secretary of State | <p>In 2002, Manachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem to parents who are United States citizens. Manachem's parents requested that the U.S. State Department record his place of birth on his passport as "Israel," in accordance with Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003 (Act). The State Department refused and instead issued Manachem a passport that listed "Jerusalem" as his place of birth. His parents sued the Secretary of State on his behalf and sought the enforcement of Section 214(d). The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that it presented a non-justiciable political question. The U.S. Supreme Court, in <em>Zivotofsky v. Clinton</em>, reversed that holding and remanded the case. On remand, the district court held that Section 214(d) "impermissibly intereferes" with the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed and held that the section goes beyond the scope of Congress's passport power to affect United States foreign policy, which is a realm the Constitution reserves for the executive branch.</p>\n | 1143 | 6 | 3 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Miscellaneous | PERSON | ORG | 0 | Anthony M. Kennedy;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;Sonia Sotomayor;Elena Kagan;Clarence Thomas;John G. Roberts, Jr.;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Antonin Scalia | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | <p>Does a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as "Israel," if requested to do so, impermissibly infringe on the President's power to recognize foreign states?</p>\n | <p>Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority holding that the federal statute unconstitutionally usurped the President’s power to recognize foreign nations as it relates to passports. The Court held that, although the Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of recognition of foreign nations, the Reception Clause in Article II of the Constitution—which states that the President will receive foreign ambassadors—grants the President the power to recognize foreign states. The fact that Article II also vests the President with the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors gives the President further control over recognition decisions. Although Congress has a role to play in other aspects of foreign policy, often by granting the President’s formal recognition practical effect, Congress has no such power to initiate international diplomacy without involving the President. Because the question of whether the American government recognizes a foreign nation must have only one answer, the President’s power is assumed to be exclusive, and therefore Congress cannot act in a manner that contradicts Executive branch policy regarding recognition. The Court also held that precedent and history support the view that the formal recognition power belongs exclusively to the President. Because the Executive branch has maintained a neutral position by not recognizing any nation’s sovereignty over Jerusalem, the federal statute in question unconstitutionally infringes on the President’s recognition power.</p>\n<p>In his concurring opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that this case presented a political question beyond the purview of the judiciary, but because precedent precluded political resolution, he joined in the majority opinion. </p>\n<p>On a second issue -- whether the statute unconstitutionally usurped the President's power to recognize foreign nations in relation to consular reports -- the Court answered 5-4 in the affirmative with Justice Clarence Thomas joining the dissenters arguing that the federal statute in question was an unconstitutional usurpation of the President’s recognition power with regard to passports but not consular reports of birth abroad. The historical record indicates that any residual foreign affairs powers that were not explicitly allocated were assumed to be vested in the President. While passport regulation has traditionally been an executive function and falls squarely within the residual foreign affairs power reserved to the President, the consular reports are part of the naturalization powers that are granted to Congress. Therefore, the enforcement of the statute in question as it relates to passports would violate the separation of powers doctrine, but it may be constitutionally applied to consular reports of birth abroad.</p>\n<p>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that, in order for the President to constitutionally ignore the express will of Congress, the President must be exercising a power that the Constitution “conclusively and preclusively” granted to the Executive branch. Because the history and the precedent regarding the power to recognize foreign states is at best conflicting, Chief Justice Roberts argued that the Constitution does not conclusively and preclusively grant the President the power to recognize foreign states. Even if the President did have that power, the statute in question would not be unconstitutional because an optional passport designation does not amount to official recognition. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in the dissent. In his separate dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that, to the extent that the Constitution grants the President the power to recognize foreign states, the power is not exclusive. The Constitution grants Congress such a power in the form of its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Regardless, the statute in question does not implicate the recognition power; it merely directs the State Department to make an accommodation regarding a geographic description that is in line with similar accommodations the State Department already offers. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined in the dissent.</p>\n |
| 2693 | 2693 | 2693 | 751 | 54076 | Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-94 | 92-94 | 1992 | Zobrest | Catalina Foothills School District | <p>James Zobrest was deaf since birth. He attended public school through the eighth grade where the local school board provided a sign-language interpreter. Zobrest's parents elected to send their son to a Roman Catholic high school and requested that the local school board continue to provide their son with a sign-language interpreter. The school board denied the request on constitutional grounds. The Zobrests then filed suit, alleging that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the school district to provide the interpreter and that the Establishment Clause did not bar such relief. The District Court granted the school district summary judgment on the ground that the interpreter would act as a conduit for the child's religious inculcation, thereby promoting his religious development at government expense in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</p>\n | 972 | 5 | 4 | True | majority opinion | reversed | First Amendment | PERSON | ORG | 0 | Byron R. White;Harry A. Blackmun;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens;Sandra Day O'Connor;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>May a school district decline to provide an interpreter to a deaf child based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?</p>\n | <p>No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the Establishment Clause did not bar the school district from providing the requested interpreter. Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned that, because the IDEA creates no financial incentive for parents to choose a sectarian school, the presence of an interpreter is not linked to the state and is the result of the private decision of individual's parents. "The service at issue in this case is part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as 'handicapped' under the IDEA, without regard to the 'sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature' of the school the child attends," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist.</p>\n |
| 2694 | 2694 | 2694 | 2939 | 62620 | Zubik v. Burwell | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1418 | 14-1418 | 2015 | David A. Zubik, et al. | Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. | <p>In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering health plans to provide preventative care and screenings for women pursuant to the guidelines established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These guidelines include “approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” The regulations include an exemption from contraceptive coverage for the group health plan of a religious employer. The exemption does not mean that such services are not covered, but that they are not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism.</p>\n<p>The petitioners are religious organizations that argue that the contraceptive coverage mandate of the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Congress enacted in 1993, because the mandate requires these organizations to “facilitate” the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptive services that they oppose on religious grounds. In several separate cases, the relevant district courts issued injunctions against the government, and the relevant Courts of Appeals reversed. The appellate courts held that the religious organizations were unable to show that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the exercise of their religious freedom.</p>\n | 1388 | 8 | 0 | True | majority opinion | vacated/remanded | First Amendment | PERSON | ORG | 0 | John G. Roberts, Jr.;Anthony M. Kennedy;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;Samuel A. Alito, Jr.;Sonia Sotomayor;Elena Kagan | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | <p>(1) Does the availability of a regulatory exemption for religious employers regarding the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on those organizations’ exercise of their religious freedom?</p>\n<p>(2) Do the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidelines satisfy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s demanding test for overriding religious objections?</p>\n<p>(3) Do the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidelines violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when the government has not proven that the guidelines are the least restrictive means of advancing the compelling government interest?</p>\n | <p>After determining through supplemental briefing that insurance companies could provide contraceptive coverage to employees of organizations that object to such coverage on religious grounds without the organizations needing to provide notification, the Court vacated the case for further consideration by the lower courts in light of this agreement from the parties. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that it reached no decision on the merits of the case, and nothing in the opinion should be construed as affecting the ability of the government to ensure that employees covered by the insurance plans at issue receive full contraceptive coverage. Given the importance of the issues involved in this case, the Court remanded the case to the lower courts to afford the parties the opportunity to determine how to proceed in a manner that grants employees full contraceptive coverage while also respecting the organizations’ religious exercise.</p>\n<p>In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that nothing in the majority opinion should be construed as signaling to lower courts where the Supreme Court stands on the merits of the case. Remanding the case allows the lower courts to consider whether the existing or modified regulations may properly balance the interests at issue.</p>\n |
| 2695 | 2695 | 2695 | 1807 | 55427 | Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education | https://api.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1508 | 05-1508 | 2006 | Zuni Public School District No. 89 et al. | United States Department of Education et al. | <p>The Department of Education certified that the state of New Mexico equalizes educational expenditures among school districts. The certification of equalization allowed New Mexico to offset its funding of districts located on Indian Reservations by a proportion of the federal Impact Aid payments made to those districts. Zuni Public School District objected to the certification, arguing that the Department had not followed the statutory formula for determining that a state's expenditures are equalized. Outlier school districts falling above the 95th or below the 5th percentile in per-pupil expenditures were excluded from consideration when the Department determined equalization. The Department calculated these percentiles based on the total student population, but Zuni argued that 20 U.S.C. Section 7709 had repealed that policy.</p>\n<p>An administrative judge dismissed Zuni's complaint, and the Secretary of Education affirmed on the ground that the law was ambiguous. A divided panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the Secretary's decision as a valid interpretation of the statute. In a rehearing by the entire Circuit Court, the 12 judges split evenly, again upholding the ruling.</p>\n | 1236 | 5 | 4 | False | majority opinion | affirmed | Judicial Power | ORG | ORG | 0 | John Paul Stevens;Antonin Scalia;Anthony M. Kennedy;David H. Souter;Clarence Thomas;Ruth Bader Ginsburg;Stephen G. Breyer;John G. Roberts, Jr.;Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | <p>Was the Secretary of Education's regulatory formula for determining whether a state's education funding is equalized among its school districts consistent with 20 U.S.C. Section 7709, the Federal Impact Aid Program?</p>\n | <p>Yes. The Court voted 5-4 in favor of the Department of Education, affirming the lower court. In his majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with the Secretary of Education's argument that 20 U.S.C. 7709 was ambiguous on the specific formula to be used. Since administrative agencies have wide latitude to interpret their governing statutes, the Court gave deference to the Secretary's formula for calculating the 5th and 95th percentiles for the purpose of determining expenditure equalization. The majority concluded that "[...] the history of the statute strongly supports the Secretary." No member of Congress had expressed an opinion on the formula to be used, so the Department would have been free to calculate the percentiles using either formula. In response to Zuni's statutory-language based argument, the Court ruled that the statute's phrasing could encompass the Secretary's method of calculating excluded districts based on per-pupil expenditure percentiles of the total student population. The four dissenting Justices argued that the statute required the Secretary to calculate the percentiles based on a comparison of the per-pupil expenditures of the districts.</p>\n |
| 2696 | 2696 | 2696 | 224 | 51804 | Zurcher v. Stanford Daily | https://api.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1484 | 76-1484 | 1977 | Zurcher | Stanford Daily | <p>In 1971, officers of the Palo Alto, California, Police Department obtained a warrant to search the main office of The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at the university. It was believed that The Stanford Daily had pictures of a violent clash between a group of protesters and the police; the pictures were needed to identify the assailants. The officers searched The Daily's photographic laboratories, filing cabinets, desks, and waste paper baskets, but no materials were removed from the office. This case was decided together with Bergna v. Stanford Daily, involving the district attorney and a deputy district attorney who participated in the obtaining of the search warrant.</p>\n | 692 | 5 | 3 | True | majority opinion | reversed | Criminal Procedure | PERSON | ORG | 0 | Potter Stewart;Thurgood Marshall;William J. Brennan, Jr.;Byron R. White;Warren E. Burger;Harry A. Blackmun;Lewis F. Powell, Jr.;William H. Rehnquist;John Paul Stevens | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | <p>Did the search of The Daily's newsroom violate the First and Fourth Amendments?</p>\n | <p>In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the "third party" search of the newsroom did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that such searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been "satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises." The Court also found that the Framers of the Constitution "did not forbid warrants where the press was involved."</p>\n |